LIBRARY 

UNrv&RSinr  op 

CALiFORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


J 


'iJt.KXl 


Uetbodist   tp/sca^-c 


iton 


IHIvriKnV  Ot  MIHrdBMU   c«n  BIESO 


3  1822  01 


368  0897 


in  I 


OTHER  WORKS  BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


Prophecy  and  the  Prophets 

Crown  8vo.     Net,  $1.50 

The  Minor  Prophets 

Crown  8vo.     Net,  $2.00 

The  Worker  and  Hi.s  Bible 

IGnio.     Net,  50  cents 


THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW 

OF  THE 

OLD  TESTAMENT 


BY 

FREDERICK  CARL  EISELEN 

Professor  in  Garrett  Biblical  Institute 


THE  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN 
NEW  YORK  CINCINNATI 


Copyright,  1912 
FREDERICK    CARL  EISELEN 


First  Edition  printed  September,  1912 
Reprinted  June,  1913;  May,  1916 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAOE 

Preface 7 

I.  The  New  Testament  View  of  the  Old  Tes- 

tament    9 

II.  The  Old  Testament  and  Modern  Science...  38 

III.  'I'he  Old  Testament  and  Modern  Criticism  66 

IV.  The  Old  Testament  and  Archaeology 110 

V.  The  Old  Testament  and  Comparative  Re- 

ligion    160 

VI.  The   Permanent   Significance  of  the  Old 

Testament 227 

Index 264 


PREFACE 

During  the  past  half  century  the  attitude  of 
many  men  toward  the  Bible  has  "undergone  a 
decided  change.  The  old  confidence  seems  to  be 
gone;  a  feeling  of  uncertainty  and  of  unrest  has 
taken  its  place.  This  small  volume  is  intended 
to  set  forth  the  Christian  view  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  to  furnish  answers  to  some  of  the 
questions  men  are  asking  concerning  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  of  the  Hebrews,  which  the  early  Chris- 
tians included  in  the  canon  of  Christian  sacred 
writings.  The  old  foundations  are  not  shaken. 
The  Old  Testament  has  stood  the  tests  of  the 
past,  which  have  been  severe  and  often  merciless; 
and  there  is  to-day  stronger  ground  than  ever 
for  believing  that  in  its  pages  "men  spake  from 
God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Frederick  Carl  Eiselen. 

Evanston,  Illinois. 


CHAPTER  I 

The  New  Testament  View  of  the 
Old  Testament 

The  Christian  Church  has  always  assigned  to 
the  Bible  a  unique  place  in  theology  and  hfe. 
What  is  true  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole  is  equally 
true  of  that  part  of  the  Bible  which  is  known  as 
the  Old  Testament.  Indeed,  until  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  of  the  Christian  era,  the 
only  Scriptures  accepted  as  authoritative  were 
those  of  the  Old  Testament.  Even  then,  only 
gradually  and  under  the  pressure  of  real  need, 
different  groups  of  Christian  writings  were  added 
and  received  an  authority  equal  to  that  of  the 
older  Scriptures.  And  though  in  the  course  of 
the  centuries  there  have  been  some  who  denied 
to  the  Old  Testament  a  rightful  place  in  Christian 
thought  and  life,  the  Church  as  a  whole  has  al- 
ways upheld  the  judgment  of  the  early  Christians 
in  making  the  Old  Testament  a  part  of  the  canon 
of  Christian  sacred  writings. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Old  Testament 
played  an  important  part  in  the  religious  life 
of  Jesus.  No  one  can  study  the  records  of  his 
life  without  seeing  that  he  gathered  much  of  his 

9 


10  THE  CIIKISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

spiritual  nourishment  from  its  pages.  Even  in 
tlie  moments  of  severest  temptation,  greatest 
distress,  and  bitterest  agony  the  words  of  these 
ancient  writings  were  on  his  hps,  and  their  con- 
soling and  inspiring  messages  in  his  heart  and 
mind.  This  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  the  ancient 
Hebrew  Scriptures  in  itself  explains  the  high 
estimate  placed  upon  them  by  his  followers. 
For,  in  the  words  of  G.  A.  Smith,  'That  which 
was  used  by  the  Redeemer  himself  for  the  sus- 
tenance of  his  own  soul  can  never  pass  out  of 
the  use  of  his  redeemed.  That  from  which  he 
proved  the  divinity  of  his  mission  and  the  age- 
long preparation  for  his  coming  must  always  have 
a  principal  place  in  his  Church's  argument  for 
him."(») 

The  attitude  of  Jesus  is  reflected  in  his  dis- 
ciples and  those  who  have  given  to  us  the  New 
Testament  books.  Nearly  three  hundred  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament  are  scattered 
throughout  the  Gospels  and  P]pistles,  and  in  a 
number  of  passages  is  the  value  of  Old  Testament 
study  specifically  emphasized.  Perhaps  nowhere 
is  this  done  more  clearly  than  in  2  Tim.  3.  15-17, 
in  words  written  primarily  of  the  Old  Testament: 
"The  sacred  writings  which  are  able  to  make 
thee  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is 
in  Christ  Jesus.  Every  scripture  inspired  of  God 
is  also   profitable   for   teaching,   for   reproof,   for 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  11 

correction,  for  instruction  which  is  in  righteous- 
ness: that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete, 
furnished  completely  unto  every  good  work." 
Evidently  the  writer  of  these  words  considers 
the  sacred  writings  of  the  Hebrews  able  to  inspire 
a  personal  saving  faith  in  Jesus,  the  Christ;  to 
furnish  a  knowledge  of  the  things  of  God;  and  to 
prepare  for  efficient  service.  And  these  are  the 
elements  which  enter  into  the  life  advocated  and 
illustrated  by  the  Founder  of  Christianity. 

An  attempt  will  be  made  in  this  chapter  to 
determine  the  New  Testament  view  of  the  Old 
Testament  for  the  purpose  of  discovering  what 
is  the  proper  Christian  view  of  that  part  of  the 
Bible.  For,  if  the  teaching,  spirit,  and  example 
of  Jesus  have  a  vital  relation  to  Christian  belief, 
and  if  his  immediate  followers  have  preserved  an 
essentially  accurate  portrayal  of  him,  then  the 
modem  Christian  view  of  the  Old  Testament 
should  be  a  reflection  of  the  view  of  Jesus  and 
of  those  who,  as  a  result  of  their  intimate  fellow- 
ship with  him,  were  in  a  position  to  give  a  cor- 
rect interpretation  of  him  and  his  teaching. 

We  may  inquire,  in  the  first  place,  what  is 
the  New  Testament  view  of  the  purpose  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures?  The  answer  to  this 
inquiry  is  furnished  by  the  passage  in  the  Second 
Epistle  to  Timothy  quoted  above.  Neither  this 
nor  any  other  passage  in  the  whole  Bible  warrants 


13  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

the  belief  that  the  Old  Testament  ever  was  meant 
to  teach  physical  science,  or  history,  or  philosophy, 
or  psychology.  Everywhere  it  is  stated  or  clearly 
implied  that  the  purpose  of  all  biblical  teaching 
is  to  make  man  morally  and  spiritually  perfect, 
and  to  furnish  him  "unto  every  good  work." 
Therefore  we  may  expect  that  where  the  Old 
Testament  writers  touch  upon  questions  of  science 
and  history  they  develop  them  only  in  so  far 
as  they  serve  this  higher  religious  and  ethical 
purpose.  This  being  the  biblical  view  of  the 
purpose  of  the  Scriptures,  any  theory  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  makes  no  distinction  between 
scientific  and  historical  statements  on  the  one 
hand,  and  religious  and  ethical  statements  on  the 
other,  is  inadequate  and  erroneous,  because  it  is 
not  in  accord  with  the  New  Testament  teaching 
on  that  point. 

The  purpose  of  the  Bible  is  intimately  con- 
nected with  its  nature  and  character.  The  New 
Testament  view  of  the  nature  and  character  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  suggested  in  Heb.  1.  1,  2: 
"God,  having  of  old  time  spoken  unto  the  fathers 
in  the  prophets  by  divers  portions  and  in  divers 
manners,  hath  at  the  end  of  these  days  spoken 
unto  us  in  a  Son."  Four  great  truths  concerning 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation  are  definitely  in- 
dicated in  these  words,  with  a  fifth  one  implied: 
CI)  God  spoke;  (2)  God  spoke  in  the  prophets, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  13 

that  is,  in  or  through  human  agents;  (3)  God  spoke 
in  divers  portions;  (4)  God  spoke  in  divers  manners; 
(5)  the  words  imply  that  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
pensation ivas  incomplete;  it  had  to  be  supple- 
mented and  perfected  by  a  revelation  in  and 
through  a  Son.  The  truths  expressed  here  con- 
stitute the  essential  elements  which  enter  into 
the  New  Testament  view  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  two  expressions,  "in  divers  portions"  and 
"in  divers  manners,"  concern  largely  the  external 
form  of  divine  revelation.  The  former  means  that 
the  revelations  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament 
were  not  given  at  one  time,  through  one  channel 
or  by  one  man,  but  at  many  times,  through  many 
channels,  by  many  men,  scattered  over  a  period 
of  many  centuries,  in  places  hundreds  of  miles 
apart.  One  result  of  this  is  seen  in  the  fact  that 
the  Old  Testament  contains  many  books  written 
by  different  authors  in  successive  periods  of  He- 
brew history. 

The  latter  expression  has  to  do  with  the  different 
kinds  of  literature  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  it 
goes  deeper  than  mere  literary  form.  It  means 
that  in  giving  revelations  of  himself  during  the 
Old  Testament  period  God  used  various  methods 
and  means,  the  different  kmds  of  literature  being 
simply  the  outgrowth  of  the  various  modes  of 
revelation. 

It    is    a    universal    Christian    belief    that    God 


U  THE  CTTKISTIAX  VIEW  OF 

reveals  liiiiiself  to-chiy  in  divers  manners  and 
modes.  Every  Christian  believes,  for  example, 
that  God  reveals  himself  in  the  events  of  his- 
tory, be  it  the  history  of  individuals  or  of  nations. 
Again,  to  many  devout  persons,  God  speaks  very 
tlistinctly  through  the  outward  acts  and  cere- 
monies of  worship.  To  thousands  of  earnest  and 
sincere  Christians  connected  with  churches  using 
an  elaborate  ritual,  this  ritual  is  no  mere  form; 
it  is  a  means  of  blessing  and  grace  through  which 
God  reveals  himself  to  their  souls.  Moreover,  God 
selects  certain  persons,  especially  well  qualified  to 
hear  his  voice;  these  he  commissions  as  ambas- 
sadors to  declare  him  and  his  will  to  the  people. 
The  belief  in  this  method  of  revelation  is  the 
philosophical  basis  for  the  offices  of  the  Christian 
preacher  and  the  Christian  religious  teacher.  Once 
more,  in  his  attempt  to  reach  the  human  heart 
God  may  dispense  with  all  external  means;  he 
may  and  does  reveal  himself  by  working  directly 
upon  and  in  the  mind  and  spirit  of  the  individual. 
These  are  some  of  the  "manners"  in  which  God 
reveals  himself  to  his  children  to-day,  and  these 
are  some  of  the  means  and  manners  in  which 
God  made  himself  known  during  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation.  Then,  as  he  does  now,  he  revealed 
himself  in  nature,  in  the  events  of  history,  in 
the  ritual,  and  by  direct  impressions;  and  at  times 
he  selected  certain  individuals  to  whom  he  might 


TTFK  OT.r>  TESTAMEXT  15 

make  himself  known  in  all  these  various  ways  and 
who  could  transmit  the  various  revelations  to 
others.  The  Old  Testament  contains  records  and 
interpretations  of  these  manifold  revelations.  It 
is  self-evident  that  when  attempts  were  made  to 
record  these  various  manifestations  of  God  difTerent 
kinds  of  literature  must  be  used  in  order  to  express 
most  vividly  the  truth  or  truths  gathered  from 
the  divine  revelations.  The  several  kinds  of  lit- 
erature, therefore,  are  the  natural  outgrowth  of 
the  manifold  modes  of  divine  revelation.  In  the 
Old  Testament  five  kinds  of  literature  may  be 
distinguished:  the  prophetic,  the  wisdom^  the 
devotional,  the  legal  or  priestly,  and  the  historical. 
In  their  production  four  classes  of  religious  workers 
who  observed,  interpreted,  and  mediated  the 
divine  revelations,  were  active:  the  prophets,  the 
wise  men,  the  priests  (compare  Jer.  LS.  18),  and 
the  psalmists. 

The  prophetic  literature  owes  its  origin  to 
prophetic  activity.  The  prophets  towered  above 
their  contemporaries  in  purity  of  character, 
strength  of  intellect,  sincerity  of  purpose,  intimacy 
of  communion  with  God,  and  illumination  by  the 
divine  Spirit.  As  a  result  of  these  qualifications 
they  were  able  to  understand  truth  hidden  from 
the  eyes  and  minds  of  those  who  did  not  live  in 
the  same  intimate  fellowship  with  Jehovah.  Their 
high  conceptions  of  the  character  of  God  enabled 


16  THE  CIirxISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

them  to  appivciate  the  divine  ideals  of  right- 
eousness, and  tlioy  sought  with  flaming  enthu- 
siasm to  impress  the  trutlis  burning  in  their 
hearts  ui)on  tlieir  less  enlightened  contemporaries. 
In  carrying  out  this  purpose  they  became  states- 
men, social  reformers,  and  religious  and  ethical 
teachers.  No  records  have  been  preserved  of  the 
utterances  of  the  earliest  prophets.  But  when, 
witli  the  general  advance  in  culture,  reading  and 
writing  became  more  common,  the  prophets, 
anxious  to  reach  a  wider  circle,  and  to  preserve 
their  messages  for  more  willing  ears,  put  their 
utterances  into  writing,  and  to  this  new  departure 
we  owe  the  sublime  specimens  of  prophetic  lit- 
erature in  the  Old  Testament. 

In  liis  direct  appeal  to  heart  and  conscience 
the  ancient  prophet  resembles  the  modern  preacher. 
The  wise  man,  like  the  prophet,  sought  to  make 
tlie  divine  will  known  to  others,  but  in  his  method 
he  resembles,  rather,  the  modern  religious  teacher. 
His  ultimate  aim  was  to  influence  conduct  and 
life,  but  instead  of  appealing  directly  to  the  con- 
science he  addressed  himself  primarily  to  the 
mind  through  counsel  and  argument,  hoping  that 
his  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  the  listener 
would  make  an  impression,  the  effects  of  which 
might  be  seen  in  transformed  conduct.  The 
prophet  would  have  said  to  the  lazy  man,  "Thus 
saitii  Jehovah,  Go  to  work,  thou  indolent  man." 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  17 

Prov.  24.  30-34  may  serve  as  an  illustration  of 
the  method  of  the  wise  man: 

I  went  by  the  field  of  the  shiggard, 

And  by  the  vineyard  of  the  man  void  of  understanding; 

And,  Id,  it  was  all  grown  over  with  thorns, 

The  face  thereof  was  covered  with  nettles, 

And  the  stone  wall  thereof  was  broken  down 

Then  I  beheld,  and  considered  well; 

I  saw,  and  received  instruction: 

Yet  a  little  sleep,  a  little  slumber, 

A  httle  folding  of  the  hands  to  sleep; 

So  shall  thy  poverty  come  as  a  robber, 

And  thy  want  as  an  armed  man. 

Nothing  escaped  the  observation  of  these  men, 
and  from  beginning  to  end  they  emphasized  the 
important  truth  that  religion  and  the  daily  life 
are  inseparable.  From  giving  simple  practical 
precepts,  the  wise  men  rose  to  speculation,  and 
the  books  of  Job  and  Ecclesiastes  bear  witness 
that  they  busied  themselves  with  no  mean 
problems. 

Of  profound  significance  is  also  the  devotional 
literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  In  a  real  sense 
the  entire  Old  Testament  is  a  book  of  devotion. 
It  is  the  outgrowth  of  a  spirit  of  intense  devotion 
to  Jehovah,  and  it  has  helped  in  all  ages  to  nurture 
the  devotional  spirit  of  its  readers.  Here,  how- 
ever, the  term  "devotional"  is  used  in  the  nar- 
rower sense  of  those  poetic  compositions  which 
are  primarily  the  expressions  of  the  religious 
experience  or  emotions  of  the  authors,  generated 


18  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

and  fostered  by  their  intimate  fellowship  with 
Jehovah.  The  chief  representative  of  this  lit- 
erature is  the  book  of  Psalms,  which  is  aptly 
described  by  Johannes  Arnd  in  these  words: 
"What  the  heart  is  in  man,  that  is  the  Psalter  in 
the  Bible."  The  Psalms  contain  in  the  form  of 
sacred  lyrics  the  outpourings  of  devout  souls — 
prophets,  priests,  kings,  wise  men,  and  peasants 
— who  came  into  the  very  presence  of  God,  held 
conmiunion  with  him,  and  were  privileged  to  hear 
the  sweet  sound  of  his  voice.  No  other  literary 
compositions  lift  us  into  such  atmosphere  of 
religious  thought  and  emotion.  Because  these 
lyrics  reflect  personal  experiences  they  may  still 
be  used  to  express  emotions  of  joy,  sorrow,  hope, 
fear,  anticipation,  etc.,  even  by  persons  who  live 
on  a  high(4-  spiritual  i)lane  than  did  the  original 
authors. 

The  legal  literature  differs  from  the  other  kinds 
in  that  it  does  not  form  separate  books,  but  is 
embodied  in  other  writings,  principally  in  the 
l)(joks  of  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuter- 
onomy. All  the  representatives  of  Jehovah — 
prophets,  priests,  wise  men,  and  even  psalmists 
— were  thought  competent  to  make  known  the 
law  of  Jehovah,  but  the  Old  Testament  makes  it 
clear  that  at  a  comparatively  early  period  the 
giving  of  law  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  the  special 
duty  of  the  priests.     These  priests  constituted  a 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  19 

very  important  class  of  religious  worlvcrs  among 
the  ancient  Hebrews.  During  the  greater  part  of 
the  national  life  their  chief  functions  were  the 
care  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  performance  of 
ceremonial  rites.  But  in  addition  to  these  duti(>s 
they  continued  to  administer  the  law  of  Jehovah, 
consisting  not  only  of  ceremonial  regulations  but 
also  of  moral  and  judicial  precepts  and  directions. 
For  centuries  these  laws  may  have  been  trans- 
mitted by  word  of  mouth,  or  were  only  partially 
committed  to  WTiting,  but  when  circumstances 
made  it  desirable  to  codify  them  and  put  them  in 
writing  the  priests  would  \)c  called  ui)on  to  take 
this  advance  step.  Thus,  while  it  is  ({uite  probable 
that  other  representatives  of  Jehovah  helped  to 
formulate  laws,  the  legal  literature  embodied  in 
the  Old  Testament  reached  its  final  form  under 
priestly  influence. 

The  historical  literature  funiislies  an  interpre- 
tation of  the  movements  of  God  in  the  events  of 
history.  It  owes  its  origin  in  part  to  prophetic, 
in  part  to  priestly,  activity.  The  prophet  was  an 
ambassador  of  Jehovah  appointed  to  make  known 
the  divine  will  concerning  the  past,  the  present, 
and  the  future.  Of  the  present  he  spoke  as  a 
preacher;  when  his  message  concerned  the  future 
it  took  the  form  of  prediction;  but  the  case  might 
arise  that  the  people  failed  to  understand  the 
significance  of  events  in  their  own  history,  and 


20  THE  CHKISTTAX  VIKW  OF 

thus  failed  to  approciato  the  lessons  which  the 
events  were  int(ai(l(\l  to  teach.  If  these  lessons 
were  not  to  be  lost,  some  one  must  serve  as  an 
interpreter,  and  who  would  be  better  qualified 
to  furnish  the  right  interpretation  than  the 
prophet?  This  demand  made  of  him,  in  a  sense, 
an  historian,  not  for  the  purpose  of  merely  re- 
cording events  but  of  interpreting  them  at  the 
same  time,  and  these  prophetic  interpretations  are 
embodied  in  the  historical  literature  originating 
with  the  j)r()i)hets. 

But  not  all  Old  Testament  history  comes  from 
the  prophets.  As  already  indicated,  the  legal  and 
ceremonial  literature  is  due  to  priestly  activity. 
Now,  in  connection  with  the  recording  of  the 
laws,  customs,  institutions,  and  ceremonial  require- 
ments, the  origin  of  these  laws  and  customs 
became  a  matter  of  interest  and  importance. 
This  interest,  and  the  demand  for  information 
arising  from  it,  led  the  priests  also  to  become 
historians.  And  to  these  priestly  writers  we 
are  indebted  for  not  a  small  part  of  sacred 
history. 

The  third  truth  taught  by  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  that  God  spoke  unto 
the  fathers  in  or  by  the  prophets,  which  means, 
that  he  used  human  agents  to  mediate  his  revela- 
tions. The  Old  Testament  may  be  more  than  a 
human   production;  nevertheless,   it   will   be   im- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  21 

possible  to  appreciate  it  adequately  unless  it  is 
borne  in  mind  that  it  contains  a  human  element. 
In  the  first  place  may  be  noted  the  differences  in 
style  between  various  writers.  These  are  fre- 
quently the  outgrowth  of  differences  in  tempera- 
ment and  early  training.  Even  the  English  reader 
can  notice  such  differences  between  Amos  and 
Hosea,  or  between  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  Evidently, 
whatever  divine  cooperation  the  biblical  writers 
enjoyed,  they  retained  enough  of  their  human 
faculties  and  powers  to  make  use  of  their  own 
peculiar  styk\s. 

Again,  the  hand  of  man  may  be  seen  in  the 
mann(T  of  literary  com[)osition.  Most  Bible  stu- 
dents are  familiar  with  the  opening  wonls  of  the 
Gospel  of  Luke:  "Forasmuch  as  many  have  taken 
in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  concerning  those 
matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us,  even 
as  they  delivered  them  unto  us,  who  from  the 
beginning  were  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
word,  it  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  traced 
the  course  of  all  things  accurately  from  the  first, 
to  write  unto  thee  in  order,  most  excellent 
Theophilus;  that  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty 
concerning  the  things  wherein  thou  wast  in- 
structed." Evidently,  the  evangelist  carefully 
sifted  the  material  at  hand  before  he  wrote  the 
Gospel,  just  as  a  modern  writer  would  do.  In  the 
Old   Testament   even   clearer   evidence    is   found 


22  THE  CHKISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

that  the  authors  of  the  several  books  were  guided 
in  the  process  of  composition  by  the  same  principles 
as  writers  of  extra-biblical  productions.  The  most 
suggestive  illustrations  of  this  fact  are  found  in 
the  books  of  Chronicles,  in  which  reference  is 
made  agam  and  again  to  the  sources  from  which 
the  compiler  gathered  his  material.  In  1  Chron. 
29.  29,  for  example,  mention  is  made  of  the 
"words  of  Samuel  the  seer,  .  .  .  the  words  of  Nathan 
the  prophet,  and  .  .  .  the  words  of  Gad  the  seer"; 
2  Chron.  9.  29  refers  to  "words  of  Nathan  the 
prophet, .  . .  the  prophecy  of  Ahijah, .  .  .  the  visions 
of  Iddo  the  seer."  These  are  only  a  few  of  the 
references  scattered  throughout  Chronicles,  but 
they  arc  sufficient  to  show  that  in  their  composi- 
tion methods  employed  by  secular  writers  were 
used.  The  same  characteristic  appears  in  the  book 
of  Proverbs.  According  to  its  own  testimony,  it 
contains  several  separate  collections.  After  the 
general  title,  "Proverbs  of  Solomon,"  in  1.  1, 
the  following  additional  headings  are  found:  10.  1, 
"J^rovcrbs  of  Solomon";  22.  17,  "The  words  of 
the  wise";  24.  23,  "These  also  are  the  sayings 
of  the  wise";  2.5.  1,  "These  also  are  the  proverbs 
of  Solomon,  which  the  men  of  Hezekiah,  king 
of  Judah,  copi(Hl  out";  30.  1,  "The  words  of 
Agur";  31.  1,  "The  words  of  King  Lemuel";  31. 
10-31  is  an  anonymous  alphabetic  acrostic.  Sim- 
ilar more  or  less  clearly  marked  phenomena  may 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  23 

be  noted  in  other  Old  Testament  books,  all  of 
them  bearing  witness  to  the  presence  of  a  human 
element  in  these  writings. 

More  significant  are  the  historical  inaccuracies 
found  here  and  there  in  the  books.  They  may 
not  be  serious;  the  substantial  accuracy  of  the 
writings  may  be  established,  but  even  the  slight- 
est inaccuracy  constitutes  a  blemish  which  one 
would  not  expect  in  a  work  coming  directly  from 
an  all-wise  God.  For  example,  2  Kings  18.  10 
states  that  Samaria  was  taken  in  the  sixth  year 
of  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah;  verse  13  contains 
the  statement  that  in  the  fourteenth  year  of 
Hezekiah,  Sennacherib,  king  of  Assyria,  came 
against  Jerusalem.  Now,  the  date  of  the  capture 
of  Samaria  is  definitely  fixed  by  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions.  The  city  fell  either  in  the  closing 
days  of  B.  C.  722,  or  the  beginning  of  B.  C.  721. 
Assuming  that  it  was  in  722,  the  fourteenth  year 
of  Hezekiah  would  be  B.  C.  714.  But  Sennacherib 
did  not  become  king  of  Assyria  until  B.  C.  705, 
while  his  attack  upon  Judah  and  Jerusalem  was 
not  undertaken  until  B.  C.  701,  hence  there  would 
seem  to  be  an  inaccuracy  somewhere.  Certainly, 
since  the  primary  purpose  of  the  writings  is  not  his- 
torical, but  religious,  these  inaccuracies  do  not  affect 
the  real  value  of  the  book.  Nevertheless,  their 
presence  shows  that  the  writings  cannot  be  looked 
upon  as  coming  in  all  their  parts  directly  from 


24  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

God.     At  some  point  man  must  have  stepped  in 
and  left  marks  of  his  hmitations. 

I\Iore  serious  perhaps  may  appear  the  incom- 
pleteness and  imperfection  of  tlie  religious  and 
ethical  conceptions,  especially  in  the  older  portions. 
Read,  for  example,  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of 
Second  Samuel.  Jehovah  is  there  represented  as 
causing  David  to  number  the  people,  and  when 
he  carried  out  the  command  Jehovah  was  angry 
and  sent  a  pestilence  which  destroyed,  not  David, 
but  seventy  thousand  innocent  men.  Can  any 
Christian  believe  that  the  God  of  love  revealed  by 
Jesus  ever  acted  in  such  arbitrary  manner?  No! 
The  trouble  lies  with  the  author  of  the  passage, 
who,  on  account  of  his  relatively  low  conception 
of  the  character  of  Jehovah,  gave  an  erroneous 
interpretation  of  the  events  recorded.  A  later 
writer,  who  had  a  truer  conception  of  the  God 
of  Israel,  saw  that  a  mistake  had  been  made; 
therefore  he  introduced  Satan  as  the  one  who 
caused  the  numbering  (1  Chron.  21.  1).  Or  take 
the  twenty-second  chapter  of  First  Kings,  espe- 
cially verses  19  to  23.  Four  hundred  prophets  of 
Jehovah  urge  Ahab  to  go  up  against  Ramoth- 
gilead.  On  the  advice  of  the  king  of  Judah, 
Micaiah  is  called,  who  announces,  after  some 
hesitation,  that  the  expedition  will  end  dis- 
astrously. He  then  explains  how  it  happened 
that  the  other  prophets  told  a  falsehood:  "There- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  25 

fore  hear  thou  the  word  of  Jehovah :  I  saw  Jehovah 
sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven 
standing  by  him  on  his  right  hand  and  on  his 
left.  And  Jehovah  said,  Who  shall  entice  Ahab, 
that  he  may  go  up  and  fall  at  Ramoth-gilead? 
And  one  said  on  this  manner;  and  another  said 
on  that  manner.  And  there  came  forth  a  spirit, 
and  stood  before  Jehovah,  and  said,  I  will  entice 
him.  And  Jehovah  said  unto  him.  Wherewith? 
And  he  said,  I  will  go  forth,  and  will  be  a  lying 
spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.  And  he 
said.  Thou  shalt  entice  him,  and  shalt  prevail 
also;  go  forth,  and  do  so.  Noiv  therefore,  behold, 
Jehovah  hath  put  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth 
of  all  these  thy  prophets;  and  Jehovah  hath 
spoken  evil  concernhig  thee."  Can  any  Christian 
believe  that  our  God  who  is  infinitely  pure  and 
holy  ever  did  persuade  anyone  to  tell  a  lie? 
God  never  changes;  he  has  always  been  pure  and 
holy;  but  man  was  not  able  in  the  beginning  to 
comprehend  him  in  his  fullness.  The  human  con- 
ceptions of  the  divine  were  imperfect  and  incom- 
plete, and  these  imperfect  conceptions  are  embodied 
in  some  of  the  Old  Testament  writings.  True,  as 
Bowne  suggests,  "God  might  conceivably  have 
made  man  over  all  at  once  by  fiat,  but  in  that 
case  it  would  have  been  a  magical  rather  than 
a  moral  revelation. "(^) 

Throughout   the   entire   book   these   and   other 


2G  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

indications  of  the  presence  of  a  human  element 
may  be  seen,  which  the  reader  cannot  afford  to 
overlook  if  he  would  estimate  rightly  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  But  while  they  are  there, 
they  must  not  blind  the  eyes  of  the  student  to 
the  fourth  great  truth  expressed  by  the  writer 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  namely,  that  God 
spoke  through  these  men;  in  other  words,  that 
there  is  also  a  divine  element  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  the  words  of  S.  I.  Curtis:  ''While  it 
seems  to  me  that  we  find  abundant  evidences  of 
development  in  the  Old  Testament  from  very 
simple  concrete  representations  of  God  to  those 
which  are  profoundly  spiritual,  I  am  not  able 
to  account  for  this  development  on  naturalistic 
principles.  In  it  I  see  God  at  all  times  and 
everywhere  coworking  with  human  instruments 
until  the  fullness  of  time  should  come"(^).  The 
presence  of  this  divine  clement  was  recognized  by 
Jesus  and  by  all  the  New  Testament  writers,  and 
surely  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  in  the  first 
outburst  of  Christian  enthusiasm,  and  under  the 
living  impression  of  the  unique  personality  of 
the  Master,  no  doubt  arose  concerning  the  inspira- 
tion and  permanent  value  of  the  Old  Testament. 
With  the  Christian  the  testimony  of  Jesus  and 
his  disciples  carries  great  weight.  But  without 
appealing  to  his  authority  every  unbiased  reader 
may  convince  himself  of  the  nature  and  character 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  27 

of  the  Book;  it  is  not  necessary  to  depend  upon 
the  testimony  of  men  who  lived  centuries  ago, 
though  they  were  inspired  men.  The  Book  is  an 
open  book,  ready  for  examination,  and  inviting 
the  closest  scrutiny  on  the  part  of  every  reader. 

Former  generations  found  the  principal  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  the  belief  in  a  divine  element 
in  the  Old  Testament  in  the  pre.sence  of  miracles 
in  its  records  and  in  the  fulfillment  of  prophecy. 
The  present  generation  cannot  depend  upon 
these  arguments  exclusively.  The  whole  question 
of  miracles  in  the  Old  Testament  has  assumed  a 
different  aspect  within  recent  years.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  seen  that  in  some  places  where  formerly 
a  miracle  was  thought  to  have  been  wrought 
natural  causes  may  have  played  a  prominent 
part,  as,  for  example,  in  the  crossing  of  the  Red 
Sea  and  the  Jordan.  In  other  cases  language 
which  used  to  be  interpreted  literally  is  now 
seen  to  be  poetic  and  imaginative.  In  still  other 
cases  the  absolute  historical  accuracy  of  certain 
narratives  has  come  to  be  questioned.  All  this 
has  resulted  in  a  weakening  of  the  evidence  relied 
upon  by  former  generations.  Approaching  the 
subject  of  miracles  from  another  side,  a  better 
acquaintance  with  the  uniformity  of  nature  and 
the  laws  of  nature  has  led  some  to  question  even 
the  possibility  of  miracles,  while  the  greater  em- 
phasis upon  the  immanence  of  God  has  resulted 


2S  THE  CHKISTIAX  VIEW  OF 

in  altered  conceptions  of  the  natural  and  super- 
natural, if  not  in  an  almost  complete  obliteration 
of  any  distinction  between  the  two.  Since  miracles 
are  involved  in  so  much  uncertainty,  they  do 
not  at  present  constitute  a  very  strong  argu- 
ment to  prove  the  presence  of  a  divine  element 
in  the  Old  Testament  to  one  who  is  at  all  skepti- 
cally inclined;  indeed,  there  are  many  sincere 
Christians  who  find  miracles  useless  as  an  aid 
to  faith. 

In  a  similar  manner,  one  cannot  appeal  with  the 
same  assurance  as  formerly  to  the  fulfillment  of 
prophecy.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  many 
prophetic  utterances  were  fulfilled;  it  is  equally 
true  that  some  were  not  fulfilled.  If,  however, 
the  apologist  depends  upon  the  fulfillment  of  proph- 
ecy as  a  proof,  the  nonfulfillment  of  even  a  single 
one  weakens  his  position.  Moreover,  it  is  recog- 
nized at  present  that  prophecy  in  the  sense  of 
prediction  occupies  a  relatively  insignificant  place 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Besides,  scientific  methods 
of  study  have  shown  that  some  passages  inter- 
preted formerly  as  predictions  can  no  longer  be 
so  interpreted,  while  in  the  case  of  others  the 
interpretation  is  more  or  less  doubtful.  Here, 
again,  the  difficulties  connected  with  the  use  of 
the  argument  have  become  so  perplexing  that 
many  consider  it  wise  not  to  use  it  at  all.  If 
used  with  caution,  prophecy,  especially  Messianic 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  29 

prophecy,  possesses  ^rent  evidential  value;  but 
the  argument  from  tlic  lulfillnient  of  prophecy  as 
used  formerly  has  lost  nmcli  of  its  worth  as  a 
proof  of  inspiration.  The  arguments  relied  upon 
at  the  present  time  are  simpler  than  those  of 
the  past,  and  are  of  such  a  nature  that  any  fair- 
minded  student  can  test  them. 

In  the  first  place,  attention  may  be  called  to 
the  essential  unity  of  the  book.  There  are  in  the 
Old  World  great  and  magnificent  cathedrals,  some 
of  which  have  been  c(>ntiiries  in  building,  yet  in 
all  of  them  may  be  found  unity  and  harmony. 
How  is  this  to  be  explained?  Although  generation 
after  generation  of  workmen  have  labored  on  the 
enterprise,  back  of  all  the  efforts  was  a  single 
plan,  evolved  in  the  mind  of  one  man,  which 
mind  controlled  all  the  succeeding  generations  of 
workmen.  The  result  is  unity  and  harmony. 
The  Bible  has  been  likened  to  a  magnificent 
cathedral.  The  phenomenon  to  wliicli  reference 
has  been  made  in  connection  with  ancient  cathe- 
drals may  be  seen  in  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  as  also 
in  the  Old  Testament  considered  separately.  The 
latter  contains  thirty-nine  books,  by  how  many 
authors  no  one  knows,  scattered  over  a  period 
of  more  than  a  thousand  years,  written,  at  least 
some  of  them,  independently  of  one  another,  in 
places  hundreds  of  miles  apart.  And  yet  there 
is   one   thought   running   through   them   all — the 


30  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

gradual  unfokling  of  God's  plan  of  redemption 
for  the  human  race.  There  must  be  an  explanation 
of  this  unity.  Is  it  not  natural  to  find  it  in  the 
fact  that  one  and  the  same  divine  spirit  over- 
shadowed the  many  men  who  made  contributions 
to  the  Book? 

The  proof  of  the  presence  of  a  divine  element 
in  the  Old  Testament  which  is  derived  from  the 
essential  imity  of  the  book,  is  confirmed  by  the 
response  of  the  soul  to  its  message,  and  the  effect 
which  it  produces  in  the  lives  of  those  who  yield 
themselves  to  its  teachings.  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
observed  that  its  message  rightly  applied  would 
awaken  a  response  in  the  human  heart ;  sometimes, 
indeed,  it  produced  a  sense  of  indignation,  because 
it  carried  with  it  a  sentence  of  condemnation; 
at  other  times  it  led  to  loving  obedience.  And 
they  themselves  experienced  the  effects  of  its 
teaching  upon  life  and  character:  it  was  with 
truths  proclaimed  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
Jesus  overcame  temptation,  and  the  quotations 
used  in  the  darkest  hours  of  his  earthly  life  are 
an  indication  that  at  all  times  he  found  the  most 
refreshing  soul  food  in  its  pages.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  early  disciples  of  Jesus.  Undoubtedly, 
the  statement  in  2  Tim.  3.  15-17  is  the  expression 
of  a  living  experience;  and  ever  since  these  words 
were  written  millions  of  Christians  have  experienced 
the  upHfting  influence  of  many  portions  of  the 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  31 

Old  Testament  Scriptures.  They  may  not  enjoin 
the  finer  graces  of  Christianity,  but  they  insist 
most  strongly  and  persistently  upon  the  funda- 
mental virtues  which  go  to  make  up  a  sturdy, 
noble,  righteous,  uncompromising  character.  A 
message  which  produces  such  divine  results  bears 
witness  to  itself  that  it  embodies  truth  which 
in  some  sense  proceeded  from  God.  This  is  aptly 
stated  by  Coleridge  in  these  words:  "Need  I  say 
that  I  have  met  everywhere  more  or  less  copious 
sources  of  truth  and  power  and  purifying  im- 
pulses, that  I  have  found  words  for  my  inmost 
thoughts,  songs  for  my  joy,  utterances  for  my 
hidden  griefs,  and  pleadings  for  my  shame  and 
feebleness?  In  short,  whatever  finds  me,  bears 
witness  for  itself  that  it  has  proceeded  from  a 
Holy  Spirit,  even  from  the  same  Spirit  which 
remaining  in  itself,  yet  regenerateth  all  other 
powers,  and  iii  all  ages  entermg  into  holy  souls, 
maketh  them  friends  of  God  and  prophets. "(^ 

As  long  as  the  Old  Testament  is  able  to  awaken 
this  response  and  [)roduce  these  effects  men  will 
believe  that  it  contains  a  divine  element;  and 
it  will  accomplish  these  things  whenever  men 
are  willing  to  study  it  intelligently  and  devoutly. 
What  the  Old  Testament  calls  for  is  not  a  defense 
but  earnest  and  devout  study.  The  words  of 
Richard  Rothe  concerning  the  Bible  as  a  whole 
are  applicable  also  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures : 


32  THE  CHT^TSTIAN  VIEW  OF 

"Let  the  Bible  go  forth  into  Christendom  as  it 
is  in  itself,  as  a  book  like  other  books,  without 
allowing  any  dogmatic  theory  to  assign  it  to  a 
reserved  position  in  the  ranks  of  books,  let  it 
accomi)lish  of  itself  entirely  through  its  own 
character  and  through  that  which  each  man  can 
find  in  it  for  himself,  and  it  will  accomplish  great 
things. "(")  The  words  of  Professor  Westphal  are 
also  worthy  to  be  remembered:  "The  only  thing 
for  our  more  enlightened  religion  to  bear  in  mintl 
is  that  the  proof  of  revelation  is  not  necessarily 
to  be  found  in  the  formula  which  claims  to  herald 
it,  but,  above  all,  in  the  specific  value  of  the 
thing  revealed,  in  the  divine  character  of  the 
inspiretl  Word  which  forces  our  conscience  to 
recognize  in  it  the  expression  of  God's  will 
itself/'C) 

The  value  and  significance  of  the  above  argu- 
ment cannot  be  overestimated.  But  during  the 
past  century  other  proofs  have  become  available 
as  a  result  of  the  careful,  painstaking  study  of 
the  Bible  by  scholars  in  many  lands  and  from 
various  points  of  view.  These  investigations  have 
shown  the  Old  Testament  to  be  a  peculiarly  unique 
book  when  compared  with  other  sacred  literatures 
of  antiquity.  This  uniqueness  consists  principally 
in  the  pure  and  lofty  atmosphere  which  permeates 
the  whole  from  beginning  to  end.  One  maj'' 
read   its  stories  of  prehistoric  thnes,  its  records 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  33 

of  history,  its  law,  its  poetry,  its  proplicoy,  and 
every wlicro  lie  will  find  a  religious  tone  and 
spirit  which,  if  present  at  ail,  is  much  less  marked 
in  the  similar  literatures  of  other  nations.  The 
modern  scientific  student  has  approached  the  Old 
Testament  chiefly  from  four  directions,  and  in 
the  pursuit  of  his  work  four  distinct  tests  have 
been  applied  to  the  Old  Testament:  the  tests  of 
science,  of  criticism,  of  archaeology,  and  of  com- 
parative religion.  These  four  tests  and  their 
bearing  upon  the  New  Testament,  or  Christian, 
view  of  the  Old  Testament  are  considered  in  the 
succeeding  pages. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  one  important  ques- 
tion remains  to  be  considered.  It  may  be  for- 
mulated in  this  wise:  If  there  are  limitations  and 
imperfections  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  anywhere 
else  in  the  Bible,  how  may  they  be  distinguished 
from  the  truth?  In  the  case  of  historical  or 
scientific  errors  the  method  of  procedure  may 
appear  clear  to  those  who  hold  the  New  Testament 
view  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  Old  Testament 
writers;  but  the  situation  seems  more  troublesome 
in  the  case  of  religious  and  ethical  imperfections, 
because  religion  and  ethics  are  the  rightful  sphere 
of  the  biblical  writings.  If  the  Bible  is  not  the 
final  authority,  where  can  be  found  a  criterion 
by  which  the  biblical,  or  Old  Testament,  state- 
ments may  be  judged?    Startling  as  the  suggestion 


34  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

to  judge  scriptures  may  seem  in  theory,  a  moment's 
thought  will  show  that  it  is  being  done  every 
day  by  practically  every  Christian  who  seeks 
spiritual  nourishment  in  the  Sacred  Book.  Who 
has  not  passed  through  experiences  such  as  are 
suggested  in  these  words  of  Marcus  Dods? — "Who 
is  at  the  reader's  elbow  as  he  peruses  Exodus 
and  Leviticus  to  tell  him  what  is  of  permanent 
authority  and  what  is  for  the  Mosaic  economy 
only?  Who  whispers  as  we  read  Genesis  and 
Kings,  'This  is  exemplary;  this  is  not'?  Who 
sifts  for  us  the  speeches  of  Job,  and  enables  us 
to  treasure  up  as  divine  truth  what  he  utters 
in  one  verse,  while  we  reject  the  next  as  Satanic 
ravings?  Who  gives  the  preacher  authority  and 
accuracy  of  aim  to  pounce  on  a  sound  text  in 
Ecclesiastes,  while  wisdom  and  folly  toss  and  roll 
over  one  another  in  confusingly  rapid  and  inex- 
tricable contortions?  What  enables  the  humblest 
Christian  to  come  safely  through  the  cursing 
Psalms  and  go  straight  to  forgive  his  enemy? 
What  tells  us  that  we  may  eat  things  strangled, 
though  the  whole  college  of  apostles  deliberately 
and  expressly  prohibited  such  eating?  Who  as- 
sures us  that  we  need  not  anoint  the  sick  with 
oil,  although  in  the  New  Testament  we  are 
explicitly  conmianded  to  do  so?  In  a  word,  how 
is  it  that  the  simplest  reader  can  be  trusted 
with  the  Bible  and  can  be  left  to  find  his  own 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  35 

spiritual  nourishment  in  it,  rojecting  almost  as 
much  as  he  receives?" (^)  Those  questions  call 
attention  to  a  common  Christian  practice.  But, 
if  the  practice  can  be  justified  as  Christian,  the 
principle  underlying  the  practice  may  be  Christian 
also;  and  so  it  is,  for  it  is  recognized  as  legitimate 
in  the  New  Testament. 

A  single  sentence  from  a  New  Testament  book 
suggests  the  answer  to  the  above  questions:  "He 
that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all  things. "(^)  The 
Scriptures  are  included  among  the  "all  things." 
But  notice,  Paul  does  not  say  that  anyone  may 
set  himself  up  as  judge,  but  "he  that  is  spiritual"; 
that  is,  the  man  who  is  controlled  by  the  spirit 
of  the  Christ.  If  Jesus  has  given  to  the  world 
the  highest  revelation  of  God  and  truth,  then  the 
expressions  of  all  other  revelations  must  be  meas- 
ured by  his  revelation,  either  as  an  external  stand- 
ard, or  as  an  inner  criterion  by  him  who,  in  his  own 
experience,  has  appropriated  the  character,  spirit, 
and  life  of  Jesus.  He  who  has  thus  appropriated 
the  Christ  in  his  fullness  will  be  able  to  judge 
all  things.  But  until  he  has  reached  that  standard 
man's  judgment  will  remain  imperfect  and  more 
or  less  unreliable,  and  though  for  his  own  guidance 
he  is  still  dependent  upon  it,  he  must  guard 
against  the  error  of  setting  up  his  own  imperfect 
Christian  consciousness  as  the  ultimate  criterion 
for  all. 


36  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Up  to  the  prcsont  time  no  individual  has  reached 
the  stage  of  experience  where  he  maybe  appealed 
to  as  final  authority  for  all.  Perhaps  the  sum 
total  of  the  general  Christian  consciousness  would 
prove  a  more  reliable  guide,  or  the  Church  in  so 
far  as  it  embodies  this  consciousness.  But  it  also 
still  falls  short  of  its  final  glory.  It  is  in  the 
process  of  development  toward  perfection,  but  it 
has  not  yet  reached  that  stage,  and  will  not 
reach  it  until  the  consciousness  of  every  individual 
contributing  to  it  reflects  the  consciousness  of 
Jesus  himself.  Then,  and  then  onl}^  can  it  be 
appealed  to  as  an  ultimate  criterion  in  matters 
religious  or  Christian,  including  the  specific  ques- 
tion under  consideration:  What  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  from  God,  and  so,  permanent,  and  what 
is  due  to  the  human  limitations  of  the  authors, 
and  so,  temporary  and  local? 

It  seems,  therefore,  necessary  to  appeal  at 
the  present  time  to  what  may  be  called,  in  a 
sense,  an  external  standard:  the  spirit,  the  teach- 
ing, and  the  life  of  Jesus  as  it  may  be  determined 
objectively  from  the  gospel  records.  The  supreme 
position  occupied  by  Jesus  the  Christ  in  Christian 
thinking  is  well  described  by  W.  N.  Clarke:  "He 
[Jesus  Christ]  has  shown  God  as  he  is  in  his  char- 
acter and  relations  with  men.  He  has  represented 
life  in  its  true  meaning,  and  opened  to  us  the  real 
way  to  genuine  welfare  and  success  in  existence. 


THE  OJ^l)  TESTAMENT  3V 

What  he  has  made  known  commends  and  proves 
itself  as  true  by  the  manner  in  which  it  fits  into 
the  human  scheme,  meets  human  needs,  and 
renders  thought  rational  and  Ufe  successful.  God 
eternally  is  such  a  being  as  Jesus  represents  him 
to  be — this  is  the  heart  of  Christianity,  to  be 
apprehended,  not  first  in  thought  but  first  in 
life  and  love,  and  this  is  forever  true.  And  it  is 
a  revelation  never  to  be  superseded,  but  forever 
to  be  better  and  better  known.'X")  By  this 
standard,  called  by  Clarke  the  Christian  element 
in  the  Bible,  the  Old  Testament  teaching  must  be 
measured;  and  by  the  application  of  this  standard 
alone  is  it  possible  to  separate  the  human  from 
the  divine  and  to  estimate  rightly  the  permanent 
value  of  Old  or  New  Testament  teaching.  What- 
ever in  the  Scriptures  endures  this  test  may  be 
received  as  of  permanent  religious  value,  because 
it  is  divine  in  the  deepest  sense. 

NOTES  ON  CHAPTER  I 

(*)  Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, p.  19. 
C)  Studies  in  Christianity,  p.  73. 
(')  Primitive  Semitic  ReUgions  To-day,  p.  14. 
('')  Letters  on  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  Letter  L 
(')  Quoted  in  the  Old  Testament  Student,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  84. 
(*)  The  Law  and  the  Prophets,  p.  16. 
(')  The  Bible,  Its  Origin  and  Nature,  pp.  160,  161. 
(«)  1  Cor.  2.  15. 
{")  The  l^se  of  the  Scriptures  in  Theology,  pp.  51,  52. 


38  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Old  Testament  and  Modern  Science 

For  many  centuries  during  the  Christian  era 
science  was  ahnost  completely  dominated  by 
theology.  Whenever,  therefore,  a  scientific  in- 
vestigator proposed  views  not  in  accord  with  the 
theological  notions  of  the  age  he  was  considered 
a  heretic  and  condemned  as  such.  During  these 
same  centuries  theology  was  dominated  by  a 
^iew  of  the  Bible  which  valued  the  latter  as  an 
infallible  authority  in  every  realm  of  human 
thought.  The  view  of  the  Bible  held  then  was 
expressed  as  late  as  1861  in  these  words:  "The 
Bible  is  none  other  than  the  voice  of  Him  that 
sitteth  upon  the  throne.  Every  book  of  it,  every 
chapter  of  it,  every  verse  of  it,  every  word  of  it, 
every  syllable  of  it  (where  arc  we  to  stop?),  every 
letter  of  it,  is  the  direct  utterance  of  the  Most 
High.  The  Bible  is  none  other  than  the  word  of 
God;  not  some  part  of  it  more,  some  part  of  it 
less,  but  all  alike,  the  utterance  of  Him  who  sitteth 
upon  the  throne,  faultless,  unerring,  supreme. "(') 
A  book  which  came  thus  directly  from  the  mind 
of  God  must  be  inerrant  and  infallible;  hence 
closely  associated  with  this  mechanical  view  of 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  39 

the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible  was  the  belief  in 
its  absolute  inerrancy  and  infallibility.  This  is 
clearly  recogniz(>d  in  the  words  of  two  eminent 
American  theologians:  "The  historical  faith  of  the 
Church  has  always  been  that  the  affirmations  of 
the  scriptures  of  all  kinds,  whether  of  spiritual 
doctrine  or  dutj^,  or  of  physical  or  historical  fact, 
or  of  psychological  or  philosophical  principle, 
are  without  any  error,  when  the  ipsissima  verba 
of  the  autographs  are  ascertained  and  interpreted 
in  their  natural  and  intended  sense. "(^) 

With  such  an  estimate  of  the  Bible  it  is  only 
natural  that  theology  should  bitterly  resent  any 
and  all  scientific  conclusions  which  seemed  to  be 
contrary  to  the  statements  of  the  Bible.  How- 
ever, a  study  of  the  history  of  Bible  interpretation 
creates  a  serious  perplexity.  The  principles  upon 
which  the  interpretations  rested  were  not  the 
same  in  all  ages.  As  a  result,  the  "natural  and 
intended  sense"  of  biblical  statements  was  vari- 
ously apprehended.  What  was  considered  the 
clear  teaching  of  Scripture  in  one  age  might  be 
condemned  as  unscriptural  in  another.  Moreover, 
some  of  the  methods  of  interpretation  are  not 
calculated  to  inspire  confidence  in  the  results. 
\\Tien,  for  example,  the  poetic  passage, 

Sun,  stand  thou  still  upon  Gibeon, 

And  thou,  moon,  in  the  valley  of  Aijalon. 

And  the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon  stayed,  (') 


40  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

is  considered  sufficient  to  discredit  the  scientific 
claun  that  the  earth  moves  around  the  sun,  rather 
than  the  sun  around  the  earth,  one's  confidence 
in  the  truth  of  the  theological  view  is  somewhat 
shaken.  It  may  be  insisted,  then,  that  much  of 
the  so-called  conflict  between  science  and  the 
Bible  was  in  reality  a  conflict  between  science 
and  a  misinterpreted  Bible. 

This,  even  theology  seems  to  have  recognized, 
for  again  and  again  it  changed  its  interpretation 
of  the  Bible  so  as  to  bring  it  into  accord  with 
the  persistent  claims  of  science.  "The  history  of 
most  modern  sciences,"  says  Farrar,  "has  been 
as  follows:  their  discoverers  have  been  proscribed, 
anathematized,  and,  in  every  possible  instance, 
silenced  or  persecuted;  yet  before  a  generation 
has  passed  the  champions  of  a  spurious  orthodoxy 
have  had  to  confess  that  their  interpretations 
were  erroneous;  and — for  the  most  part  without 
an  apology  and  without  a  blush — have  com- 
placently invented  some  ncnv  line  of  exposition 
by  which  the  phrases  of  Scripture  can  be  squared 
into  semblable  accordance  with  the  now  acknowl- 
edged fact."(^) 

The  so-called  historical  method  of  Bible  study, 
which  has  gradually  won  its  way,  at  least  in 
Protestant  Christianity,  has  established  Bible 
interpretation  upon  a  firmer  foundation,  so  that 
at  present  much  less  uncertainty  exists  as  to  the 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  41 

meaning  of  the  Bible  than  at  any  preceding  age. 
In  the  same  way  scientific  investigation  has  made 
remarkable  strides  during  the  nineteenth  century; 
Twentieth  century  science  is  far  different  from 
that  of  the  early  years  of  the  preceding  century. 
And  as  scientists  have  had  to  surrender  many  of 
their  positions  in  the  past  it  is  very  probable  that, 
as  the  result  of  further  investigation,  some  views 
held  at  present  will  be  superseded  by  others.  Nev- 
ertheless, though  science  cannot  as  yet  dispense 
with  working  hypotheses  which  may  or  may  not 
prove  true,  and  though  modifications  in  cer- 
tain widely  accepted  views  may  be  expected, 
there  are  many  conclusions  which  may  be  con- 
sidered firmly  established.  Tliis  being  the  case, 
if  at  the  present  time  the  conflict  between  science 
and  the  Bible  is  discussed,  it  is  a  conflict  between 
scientific  conclusions  reached  after  prolonged,  care- 
ful study  and  investigation  and  the  teaching  of 
the  Bible  as  determined  by  the  scientific  use  of 
all  legitimate  means  of  interpretation. 

Does  such  conflict  exist?  Many  geologists,  as- 
tronomers, biologists,  and  other  scientists  have 
claimed  for  some  time  that  they  have  reached 
conclusions  not  in  accord  with  certain  statements 
of  the  Bible.  Take  as  an  illustration  the  biblical 
and  scientific  statements  concerning  the  age  of 
the  earth,  or  creation  in  general. (')  The  general 
conclusion  reached  by  an  overwhelming  majority 


42  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

of  the  most  competent  students  of  the  Bible  has 
been  that  according  to  the  information  furnished 
by  the  Scriptures,  the  date  of  creation  was,  in 
roimd  numbers,  four  thousand  years  before  the 
oi)ening  of  the  Christian  era.(^)  At  that  time, 
in  the  words  of  the  Westminster  Confession, (^) 
"It  pleased  God  ...  to  create  or  make  of  nothing 
the  world  and  all  things  therein  whether  visible 
or  invisible  in  the  space  of  six  days  and  all  very 
good."  This  was  accepted  as  the  plain  teaching 
of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  even  after  scientific 
methods  had  been  introduced  in  the  study  of 
the  Bible.  Then  came  geology,  pushing  back  the 
"beginnings,"  adding  millions  of  years  to  the  age 
of  the  globe,  and  insisting  that  there  is  abundant 
evidence  to  prove  the  existence  of  life  upon  earth 
many  millenniums  before  B.  C.  4,000.  Other 
scif-neos  reached  conclusions  pointing  in  the  same 
din^ction,  until  it  became  perfectly  evident  that 
Bible  students  must  reckon  with  what  seemed  a 
real  conflict  between  the  conclusions  of  science  and 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible. 

No  wonder  Bible  lovers  were  troubled  when 
scientists  in  ever-increasing  numbers  advanced 
claims  that  appeared  to  involve  a  charge  of 
scientific  inaccuracy  against  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 
Many  were  convinced  that  this  could  not  be, 
for  they  feared  that  if  the  Bible  contained  in- 
accuracies of  any  sort,  its  value  would  be  com- 


Till-:  OLD  TESTAMENT  43 

pictcly  destroyed,  and  with  the  Bible  Christianity 
must  fall  into  ruins.  In  Brother  Anthony,  in- 
tended to  picture  the  perplexed  soul  of  a  monk 
in  the  days  of  Galileo,  Mark  Guy  Pcarse  gives  a 
vivid  portrayal  of  the  doubts  and  perplexities  of 
many  devout  Bible  students  in  the  nineteenth 
century : 

But  on  my  fevered  heart  there  falls  no  balm; 

The  garden  of  my  soul,  where  happy  birds 

Sang  in  the  fullness  of  their  joy,  and  bloomed 

The  flowers  bright,  finds  only  winter  now; 

And  bleak  winds  moan  about  the  leafless  trees, 

And  chill  rains  beat  to  earth  the  rotting  stalks. 

Hope,  Faith,  and  God,  alike  are  gone,  all  gone — 

If  it  be  so,  as  this  Galileo  saith. 

"The  earth  is  round  and  moves  about  the  sun, 

The  sun,"  he  saith,  "is  still,  the  axle  fixed 

Of  nature's  wheel,  renter  of  all  the  worlds." 

Galileo  is  an  honest  soul,  God  knows — 

No  end  has  he  to  serve  but  only  truth, 

By  that  which  he  declares,  daring  to  risk 

Position,  hberty,  and  even  life  itself.    He  knows. 

And  yet  the  ages  have  believed  it  not. 

Have  they  not  meditated,  watched,  and  prayed — 

Great  souls  with  vision  purged  and  purified? 

Had  God  no  messenger  until  arose 

Galileo!     Long  j^ears  the  Church  has  prayed, 

Seeking  His  grace  who  guided  into  truth, 

And  weary  eyes  have  watched  the  sun  and  stars, 

And  heard  the  many  voices  that  proclaim 

God's  hidden  ways — did  they  believe  a  lie? 

The  Church's  holy  fathers,  were  they  wrong? 

Yet  speaks  GaUleo  as  one  who  knows. 

Shrinks  all  my  soul  from  breathing  any  word 
That  dares  to  question  God's  most  holy  Book, 


44  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

As  men  beneath  an  avalanche  pass  dumb 

For  fear  a  sound  should  bring  destruction  down. 

If  but  a  jot  or  tittle  of  the  Word 

Do  pass  away,  then  is  aU  lost.    And  yet 

If  what  Galileo  maintains  be  true! — 

"The  sun  itself  worts  not."    The  Scripture  tells 

At  Joshua's  command  the  sun  stood  still. 

Doth  scripture  lie?    The  blessed  Lord  himself, 

Spake  he  not  of  the  sun  that  rose  and  set! 

So  cracks  and  cleaves  the  ground  beneath  my  feet. 

The  sun  that  fills  and  floods  the  world  with  light 
My  darkness  and  confusion  hath  become! 
O  God,  as  here  about  the  old  gray  walls 
The  ivy  clings  and  twines  its  arms,  and  finds 
A  strength  by  which  it  rises  from  the  earth 
And  mounts  toward  heaven,  then  gladly  flings 
Its  grateful  crown  of  greenery  round  the  height, 
So  by  thy  Word  my  all  uncertain  soul 
Ilath  mounted  toward  thy  heaven,  and  brought 
Its  love,  its  all,  wherewith  to  crown  my  Lord. 
Alas,  the  wall  is  fallen.    Beneath  it  crushed 
The  clinging  ivy  lies;  its  stronghold  once 
Is  now  the  prison  house,  the  cruel  grave.  (^) 

Since  the  scientific  position  seemed  to  many 
devout  believers  to  undermine  the  Christian  faith, 
it  is  not  altogether  strange  that  they  should  set 
themselves  against  these  claims  with  all  their 
might,  though  it  may  be  difficult  to  justify  the 
bitterness  displayed  by  many  Christian  ministers 
in  the  denunciation  of  even  devout  Christian 
scientists,  as  "infidels,"  "impugners  of  the  sacred 
records,"  "assailants  of  the  Word  of  God,"  etc. 
It  is  hardly  credible  that  during  the  enlightened 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  45 

nineteenth  century  geology  should  be  denounced 
as  "not  a  subject  of  lawful  inquiry,"  "a  dark 
art,"  "dangerous  and  disreputable,"  "a  forbidden 
province,"  "infernal  artillery,"  "an  awful  evasion 
of  the  testimony  of  revelation." 

But  the  progress  of  science  could  not  be  blocked 
by  denunciation,  and  gradually  the  claims  of 
geology,  astronomy,  and  other  sciences  respecting 
the  great  age  of  the  earth  came  to  be  accepted 
as  well  established.  Is,  then,  the  scientific  teach- 
ing of  the  Bible  false?  By  no  means,  said  many 
defenders  of  the  faith;  on  the  contrary,  there  is 
perfect  agreement  between  science  and  the  Bible, 
provided  the  latter  is  rightly  interpreted.  The 
first  problem  was  to  extend  what  was  commonly 
taken  to  be  the  biblical  teaching  respecting  the 
age  of  the  earth  so  as  to  meet  the  demands  of 
geology.  This'  was  readily  done  by  interpreting 
"day"  figuratively  as  meaning  an  indefinite  period. 
It  could  easily  be  shown  that  in  some  passages 
"day"  did  not  mean  a  day  of  twenty-four  hours. 
Hence,  why  not  interpret  the  word  metaphorically 
in  Gen.  1?  It  is  safe  to  say  that,  had  it  not 
been  for  a  desire  to  harmonize  the  biblical  account 
with  the  conclusions  of  science,  no  Bible  student 
would  ever  have  thought  of  this  interpretation  in 
connection  with  the  acts  of  creation,  for  a  natural 
interpretation  of  the  writer's  language  makes  it 
evident  that  when  the  author  of  Gen.  1  speaks 


46  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

of  the  successive  events  of  creation  he  is  thinking 
of  days  of  twenty-four  hours,  each  consisting  of 
clay  and  night.  C)  Marcus  Dods  is  right  when  he 
says,  "If  the  word  'day'  in  these  chapters  does 
not  mean  a  period  of  twenty-four  hours,  the 
interpretation  of  scripture  is  hopeless." C°)  No 
permanent  good  can  come  from  doing  violence  to 
plam  statements  of  the  Bible  by  the  use  of  methods 
of  interpretation  that  would  be  considered  ille- 
gitimate in  the  study  of  other  literary  productions. 
In  all  the  harmonizing  efforts  this  caution  has 
been  overlooked.  The  believer  in  revelation,  think- 
ing that  the  agreement  between  science  and  the 
Bible  must  be  minute,  has  yielded  to  the  tempta- 
tion to  twist  the  biblical  record  into  a  new  mean- 
ing with  every  fresh  discovery  of  science.  Many 
scientists  were  repelled  by  this  arbitrary  method, 
and  when  they  saw  that  agreement  could  not  be 
liad  by  legitimate  methods,  and  knew  of  no  other 
way  out  of  the  difficulty,  they  too  frequently 
assumed  a  hostile  attitude  toward  revelation.  A 
method  leading  to  such  disastrous  results  cannot 
be  considered  altogether  satisfactory. 

Granting,  however,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
the  possibility  of  interpreting  "day"  metaphor- 
ically, the  troubles  are  by  no  means  (>nded,  for 
it  Ls  impossible  to  discover  clearly  defined  periods 
in  the  geological  records  such  as  are  presupposed 
in  tlie  biblical  record.     But  there  is  a  more  serious 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  47 

difficulty.  The  order  in  which  the  different  living 
beings  and  the  heavenly  bodies  are  said  in  Genesis 
to  have  been  created  does  not  seem  to  be  the 
same  as  that  suggested  by  geology  and  astronomy. 
For  example,  according  to  Genesis,  fishes  and 
birds  appeared  together  on  the  fifth  day,  pre- 
ceding all  land  animals,  which  are  said  to  have 
been  created  on  the  sixth  day.  According  to 
geology,  fish  and  numerous  species  of  land  animals, 
especially  reptiles  living  on  land,  preceded  birds.(") 
Moreover,  according  to  Genesis,  the  sun,  moon, 
and  stars  were  created  after  the  earth,  a  view 
which  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  modern 
scientific  view  of  the  imi verse,  and  of  the  part 
the  smi  plays  in  plant  and  animal  life  upon  earth. 
True,  this  last  difficulty  is  avoided  by  some  by 
giving  to  certain  Hebrew  words  a  meaning  which 
they  do  not  ordinarily  have.  For  example,  it  is 
said,  "Let  there  be"  (verse  14)  means  ''Let  there 
appear";  "God  made"  (verse  16)  means  "God 
made  to  appear,"  or  "God  appointed,"  to  a  specific 
office.  With  this  interpretation,  it  is  stated, 
Genesis  says  nothing  about  the  formation  or 
creation  of  the  luminaries.  They  may  have  existed 
for  a  long  time,  only  on  the  fourth  day  they  were 
made  to  appear — the  vapor  aromid  the  earth 
having  previously  hidden  them — and  were  ap- 
pointed to  the  offices  mentioned  in  verses  14 
to  18.     No  one  m\\  claim  that  this  is  a  natural 


48  THE  CTIinSTIAX  A'TEW  OF 

interpretation  of  the  biblical  language.  If  the 
writer  meant  "Let  there  appear,"  he  could  have 
found  a  suitable  word  in  Hebrew,  as  also  to  express 
the  idea  ''appoint."  The  language  of  Driver  is 
not  too  strong:  "Vcirses  fourteen  to  eighteen  cannot 
Ix^  legitimately  interpreted  except  as  implying  that 
in  the  conception  of  the  WTiter  luminaries  had  not 
previously  existed,  and  that  they  were  made  and 
set  hi  their  places  in  the  heavens  after  the  separa- 
tion of  sea  and  land  and  the  appearance  of  vegeta- 
tion upon  the  earth. "(^^) 

Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  escape  the 
difficulty  caused  by  the  conclusions  of  geology  as 
to  the  ortlcr  in  which  different  forms  of  life  have 
appeared  upon  earth.  These  conclusions  are  based 
chiefly  upon  the  presence  of  fossil  remains  im- 
bedded in  the  different  strata  of  the  earth's 
surface.  Passing  by  the  earlier  explanations — for 
example,  that  these  fossil  remains  were  placed 
there  by  a  direct  act  of  God  on  one  of  the  creative 
days  for  sonic  mysterious  purpose,  perhaps  for  the 
trial  of  human  faith,  or  that  they  were  due  to 
the  ravages  of  the  Deluge — reference  may  be  made 
to  two  or  three  of  the  more  recent  "scientific" 
attempts  to  harmonize  the  facts  of  science  with 
the  statements  of  Genesis.  There  is,  first  of  all, 
the  restitution  theory  advocated  by  J.  H.  Kurtz 
and  Thomas  Chalmers. (^^)  Admitting  that  the 
fossil  remains  are  important  for  the  determination 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  49 

of  the  age  of  the  earth  and  the  order  in  which 
different  forms  of  Ufe  appeared  upon  the  globe, 
Kurtz  writes:  "The  animal  and  vegetable  world 
which  lies  buried  in  the  stratified  formations  was 
not  that  which,  according  to  the  Bible,  was 
created'  respectively  on  the  third,  fifth,  and 
sixth  days.  Its  origin  must  belong  to  an  earlier 
period. "(")  ^^^  other  words,  his  view  is  that  "the 
main  description  in  Genesis  does  not  relate  to 
the  geological  periods  at  all;  that  room  Is  left  for 
these  periods  between  verse  one  and  verse  two; 
that  the  life  which  then  flourished  upon  the 
earth  was  brought  to  an  end  by  a  catastrophe, 
the  results  of  which  are  alluded  to  in  verse  two; 
and  that  what  follows  (verses  3ff.)  is  the  descrip- 
tion of  a  second  creation  immediately  preceding 
the  appearance  of  man."  That  this  view  is  due 
to  a  desire  to  harmonize  the  biblical  account 
with  science  is  clearly  implied  in  the  words  of 
Kurtz  intended  to  meet  the  charge  of  Delitzsch 
that  his  view  is  "pure  delusion."  "It  is,"  says 
Kurtz,  "merely  a  delusion  to  attempt  identifying 
the  creation  of  the  primeval  fossil  flora  and  fauna 
with  those  of  the  third,  fifth,  and  sixth  days, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  endeavor  harmonizing 
geology  and  the  Bible. ^^  Not  to  speak  of  the 
astronomical  difficulty  referred  to  above,  which 
remains,  science  has  nothing  whatever  to  offer 
in  support   of  this   theory,   while,   on   the  other 


50  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

hand,  the  tenor  of  the  Genesis  narrative  implies 
such  close  connection  between  verse  one  and  verse 
two  that  there  is  no  room  for  the  alleged  catastro- 
phe. It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  modern 
apologists  have  discarded  the  restitution  hypothesis. 

The  vision  theory  has  been  presented  most 
forcefully  by  Hugh  Miller.  C'^')  According  to  this 
view  "the  narrative  was  not  meant  to  describe 
the  actual  succession  of  events,  but  was  the 
description  of  a  series  of  visions  presented  prophet- 
ically to  the  narrator's  mental  eye,  and  repre- 
senting, not  the  first  appearance  of  each  species 
of  life  upon  the  globe,  but  its  maximum  develop- 
ment. The  'drama  of  creation,'  it  is  said,  is  not 
described  as  it  was  enacted  historically,  but 
optically,  as  it  would  present  itself  to  a  spectator 
in  a  series  of  pictures  or  tableaux  embodying  the 
most  characteristic  and  conspicuous  feature  of  each 
period,  and,  iis  it  were,  summarizing  in  miniature 
its  results." 

Thougli  this  view  was  presented  with  much 
eloquence  and  skill,  it  has  been  unable  to  main- 
tain its  position,  simply  because  it  is  based  upon 
an  unnatural  interpretation  of  the  biblical  record. 
No  one  approaching  Genesis  without  a  theory  to 
defend  would  think  for  a  moment  that  he  is 
reading  the  description  of  a  vision.  The  only 
natural  interpretation  is  that  the  author  means 
to  record  what  he  considers  actual  fact.     Moreover, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  51 

where  in  Scripture  could  there  be  found  an  analogy 
to  this  mode  of  procedure?  The  revelation  of  an 
unknown  past  to  a  historian  or  prophet  seems  not 
in  accord  with  the  ordinary  method  of  God's 
revelations  to  men.  But,  admitting  the  possi- 
bility of  this  method  of  divine  commimication, 
why  should  the  picture  thus  presented  to  the 
mind  of  the  author  differ  so  widely  from  the  facts 
uncovered  by  geologists? 

Similar  attempts  to  harmonize  Genesis  with 
geology  have  been  made  by  other  geologists, 
among  them  Professor  Alexander  Wuichell,(")  Sir 
J.  W.  Dawson,C')  and  Professor  J.  D.  Dana.(*') 
The  results  are  perfectly  satisfactory  to  these 
writers,  but  they  fail  to  see  that  in  order  to  accom- 
plish their  purpose  they  must  have  recourse  to 
unnatural  interpretations  of  the  Genesis  account, 
which  in  itself  is  sufficient  evidence  to  show  the 
hopelessness  of  the  task.  A  similar  judgment 
must  be  passed  on  the  more  recent  attempt  by 
F.  H.  CapronC")  to  bring  the  biblical  account 
into  harmony  with  the  modern  theory  of  evolution. 
Capron  is  fully  convinced  that  "the  most  rudi- 
mentary knowledge  of  geology  is  sufficient  to 
satisfy  any  candid  critic  that  the  Genesis  narrative 
as  interpreted  by  any  one  of  them(^'^)  cannot  be 
brought  into  harmony  with  the  admitted  facts  of 
science."  He,  therefore,  attempts  a  new  harmony 
by  trying  to  show  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 


52  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

gives  only  the  order  in  which  the  creative  words 
were  uttered,  not  the  order  in  which  the  resulting 
effects  were  produced.  Unfortunately,  in  accom- 
plishing this  purpose,  he,  like  his  predecessors, 
reveals  an  almost  complete  disregard  for  the  ob- 
vious meaning  of  the  Genesis  narrative. 

After  a  close  study  of  the  Genesis  narrative 
and  the  numerous  attempts  of  harmonizing  it 
with  science,  the  present  writer  has  become 
thoroughly  convinced  that  it  is  impossible  to 
establish  a  complete,  detailed  harmony  between 
the  Genesis  account  of  creation  and  the  established 
facts  of  science  without  doing  violence  to  the 
Bible  or  to  science  or  to  both.  The  only  harmony 
possible  is  what  has  been  called  an  "ideal  har- 
mony," that  is,  a  harmony  not  extending  to 
details,  but  limited  to  salient  features.  But  this 
gives  away  the  very  position  for  which  the  "har- 
monists" have  contended.  As  Driver  says,  "If 
the  relative  priority  of  plants  and  animals,  or  the 
period  at  which  the  smi  and  moon  were  formed, 
are  amongst  the  details  on  which  harmony  cannot 
be  established,  what  other  statement  (in  the 
account  of  creation)  can  claim  acceptance  on  the 
ground  that  it  forms  part  of  the  narrative  of 
Genesis?"(^') 

Admitting  now  the  presence  of  discrepancies 
between  science  and  the  Old  Testament,  what  be- 
comes of  the  Old  Testament  ?(")     Must  it  be  dis- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  53 

carded  as  no  longer  "profitable  for  teaching,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  which  is  in 
righteousness"?  Some  there  are  who  seem  to 
fear  such  fate  for  the  book  they  dearly  love. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  multitudes  who 
calmly  admit  the  claims  of  science,  and  at  the 
same  time  continue  to  read  and  study  the  pages 
of  the  Old  Testament,  assured  that  it  can  still 
furnish  nourishment  to  their  spiritual  natures. 
This  attitude  of  confidence  has  been  made  possible, 
on  the  one  hand,  by  a  broiider  and  truer  concep- 
tion of  divine  revelation,  and,  on  the  other,  by 
a  more  adequate  interpretation  of  the  purpose  of 
the  Bible  and  of  the  biblical  writers. 

Believers  in  God  have  come  to  realize  as  never 
before  that  God  has  spoken  and  still  speaks  in 
a  variety  of  ways.  Manifestations  of  God  may 
be  seen  on  every  hand : 

The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God; 
And  the  firmament  showeth  his  handiwork. 
Day  unto  day  uttercth  speech, 
And  night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge. (^) 

What  is  the  universe  but  a  manifestation  of  God? 
The  whole  realm  of  nature  is  in  a  real  sense  a 
record  of  divine  revelations,  which  science  seeks 
to  interpret.  "Now,"  says  A.  H.  McNeile,(2'») 
"If  God  created  all  things  and  carries  the  universe 
along  by  the  utterance  of  his  power,  it  is  clear 
that  every   fresh   item   of   knowledge   gained   by 


54  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

scientific  investigation  is  a  fresh  glimpse  into  the 
will  of  God.  Strictly  speaking,  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  secular  knowledge.  A  man  only  makes 
his  studies  secular  for  himself  as  he  divorces 
them  from  the  thought  of  God,  so  that  all  the 
scientific  experiments  in  the  world  form  part  of 
the  study  of  one  aspect  of  God's  Word." 

On  the  other  hand  the  purpose  of  scripture 
has  come  to  be  more  adequately  apprehended. 
The  New  Testament  makes  it  perfectly  clear  that 
the  aim  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  is  to 
bring  man  into  harmony  with  God,  to  make  him 
morally  and  spiritually  perfect,  and  to  point  to 
the  consummation  of  the  redemptive  purpose  of 
God  in  and  through  the  Christ.  (^'')  There  is  no 
warrant  anywhere  for  the  be^Jief  that  the  Old 
Testament  writers  meant  to  teach  science  of  any 
kind.  This  is  admitted  even  by  some  who  insist 
upon  the  accuracy  of  the  scientific  teaching  of 
the  Bible.  "It  is  true  that  the  Scriptures  were 
not  designed  to  teach  philosophy,  science,  or 
ethnology,  or  human  history  as  such,  and  therefore 
they  are  not  to  be  studied  primarily  as  sources 
of  information  on  these  subjects. "(^'')  Evidently, 
then,  wherever  the  Old  Testament  touches  upon 
questions  of  science  it  treats  them  only  in  so 
far  as  they  serve  a  higher  ethical  or  spiritual 
purpose.  Is  it  necessary  to  have  absolute  scien- 
tific accuracy  in  every  detail  in  order  to  do  this 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  55 

effectively?  A  moment's  thought  will  show  that 
it  is  not.  The  writer  heard  not  long  ago  a  power- 
ful appeal  on  behalf  of  the  boys  in  a  certain 
community,  in  which  the  speaker  referred  to  the 
"Gracchi,  the  most  renowned  citizens  of  Athens." 
The  historical  inaccuracy  in  no  wise  affected  the 
moral  force  of  the  appeal.  No  one  would  be 
foolish  enough  to  assume  that  the  spiritual  and 
ethical  value  of  sermons  preached  by  the  early 
Church  fathers  is  invalidated  by  the  fanciful 
science  mixed  with  their  gospel  message.  Who 
has  not  heard  sermons  that  created  a  profound 
spiritual  impression,  though  their  science  and  his- 
tory were  not  altogether  faultless?  It  would  seem, 
then,  that  in  estimating  extra-biblical  utterances 
the  principle  is  recognized  that  "ignorance  of 
some  departments  of  truth  does  not  disqualify  a 
man  for  knowing  and  imparting  truth  about  God; 
that  in  order  to  be  a  medium  of  revelation  a  man 
does  not  need  to  be  in  advance  of  his  age  in  secular 
learning;  that  intimate  communion  with  God,  a 
spirit  trained  to  discern  spiritual  things,  a  perfect 
understanding  of  and  zeal  for  God's  purpose  are 
qualities  quite  independent  of  a  knowledge  of  the 
discoveries  of  science. "C^) 

Is  it  right  to  raise  a  different  standard  for  the 
Scriptures?  "Certainly,"  say  many,  "because 
the  Bible  is  inspired;  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  and 
God   cannot   inspire   an    untruth   of   any   kind," 


56  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Now,  it  may  be  readily  admitted  that  God  cannot 
inspire  an  untruth;  but  have  we  any  right  to 
argue  as  if  we  knew  exactly  how  God  ought  to 
convey  a  revelation  to  man?  Without  entering 
upon  a  discussion  of  the  entire  subject  of  in- 
spiration, the  question  may  be  raised  whether  or 
not  inspiration  covers  purely  scientific  information. 
The  claim  has  been  put  forth  by  some  who  believe 
that  the  Bible  and  science  are  in  perfect  agree- 
ment that  this  agreement  "proves  that  the  scien- 
tific element  of  scripture  as  well  as  the  doctrinal 
was  within  the  scope  of  inspiration. "(^^)  Con- 
sistency might  seem  to  require  the  admission  that 
disagreement  would  prove  that  the  scientific 
element  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  inspira- 
tion. At  any  rate,  it  is  of  enormous  importance 
to  remember,  what  should  be  a  perfectly  obvious 
principle,  that  the  facts  presented  in  the  Bible 
must  determine  the  a,nswer  to  the  inquiry.  In 
other  words,  "We  can  learn  what  the  Bible  is 
only  from  what  the  Bible  itself  says."(^'') 

One  thing  is  quite  certain,  namely,  that  the 
Bible  makes  not  the  slightest  claim  of  being  a 
scientific  treatise  complete  and  up-to-date. (^°)  It 
is  equally  true  that  it  does  not  deny  being  such 
a  treatise,  hence  the  inquirer  is  thrown  back  upon 
a  study  of  the  facts  presented  in  the  Bible;  and 
upon  the  basis  of  these  he  must  determine  whether 
or  not  there  is  reason  for  believing  that  scientific 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  57 

knowledge  comes  within  the  scope  of  inspiration. 
Now,  the  abstract  possibility  of  God  communi- 
cating to  man  a  knowledge  of  exact  scientific 
facts  in  a  prescientific  age  need  not  be  denied. 
It  is,  however,  a  question  whether  God  could 
have  communicated  such  facts  to  man  three 
thousand  years  ago  without  robbing  him  of  his 
personality  and  changing  him  into  a  mechanism. 
So  far  as  the  ways  of  God  are  known  from  expe- 
rience, observation,  history,  and  other  sources,  he 
has  always  treated  with  respect  and  consideration 
the  powers  and  faculties  of  his  chief  creature. 
"Had  inspired  men,"  says  Dods,(^')  "introduced 
into  their  writings  information  which  anticipated 
the  discoveries  of  science,  their  state  of  mind 
would  be  inconceivable,  and  revelation  would  be 
a  source  of  confusion.  God's  methods  are  har- 
monious with  one  another,  and  as  he  has  given 
men  natural  faculties  to  acquire  scientific  knowl- 
edge and  historical  information,  he  did  not  stultify 
this  gift  by  imparting  such  knowledge  in  a  mirac- 
ulous and  unintelligible  manner."  The  same 
truth  is  expressed  by  H.  E.  Ryle  in  these  words: 
"We  do  not  expect  instruction  upon  matters  of 
physical  inquiry  from  revelation  in  the  written 
Word.  God's  other  gifts  to  men,  of  learning, 
perseverance,  calculation,  and  the  like,  have  been 
and  are  a  true  source  of  revelation.  But  scripture 
supplies  no  short   cut  for  the   intellect.     Where 


-'iS  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

man's  intellectual  powers  may  hope  to  attain  to 
the  truth,  be  it  in  the  region  of  historical,  scientific, 
and  critical  study,  we  have  no  warrant  to  expect 
an  anticipation  of  results  through  the  interposition 
of  supernatural  instruction  in  the  letter  of  scrip- 
ture. .  .  .  Scripture  is  divinely  inspired,  not  to 
release  men  from  the  toil  of  mental  inquiry,  but 
to  lead  and  instruct  their  souls  in  things  of  eternal 
salvation. "(^)  This  is  not  an  arbitrary  limitation 
of  the  scope  of  inspiration ;  it  is  a  conclusion  based* 
upon  a  careful  consideration  of  the  facts  of  science 
and  of  the  Bible,  which  seem  to  furnish  sufficient 
evidence  that  the  biblical  writers  were  not  in  any 
marked  degree  in  advance  of  their  age  in  the 
knowledge  of  physical  facts  or  laws.  In  other 
words,  the  Bible  is  primarily  a  book  of  religion, 
hence  religion,  and  not  science,  is  to  be  looked  for 
in  its  pages.  Altogether  too  much  time  has  been 
spent  in  an  effort  to  find  in  it  scientific  truth  in 
a  scientific  form.  Such  attempts  clearly  disregard 
the  purpose  of  the  biblical  writers  as  interpreted 
in  the  New  T(;stament. 

And  could  a  Divine  Providence  have  chosen  a 
different  method?  Even  now  discoveries  follow 
one  another  so  fast  in  the  realm  of  science  that 
no  book  remains  a  standard  work  for  more  than 
a  few  years.  It  seems  obvious,  therefore,  that 
a  book  written  thousands  of  years  ago  could  not 
remain  a  standard  scientific   work  for  all  times. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  59 

But  assuming  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  God 
had  communicated  the  knowledge  of  scientific 
facts  to  these  writers — evidence  for  which  is 
entirely  lacking — what  would  have  been  the  result? 
Later  occurrences  suggest  what  might  have  hap- 
pened. The  great  mass  of  people  would  have 
looked  upon  teachers  of  strange  science  as  heretics 
and  madmen,  and  would  have  rejected  not  only 
their  scientific  teaching  but  their  religious  teach- 
mg  as  well.  What  a  loss  that  would  have  been 
to  mankind!  No  serious  loss  would  come  to  men 
if  they  were  left  a  while  longer  in  ignorance  con- 
cerning scientific  matters,  but  very  serious  loss 
would  come  to  them  by  continuing  in  their  lower 
religious  and  ethical  beliefs  and  practices.  The  only 
way  to  make  the  higher  religious  truth  understood 
was  to  present  it  in  a  form  easily  apprehended 
by  the  people.  To  do  this  is  the  chief  purpose 
of  the  primitive,  prescientific  science  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures. 

The  peculiar  element  in  scripture  is  the  spirit 
and  religious  atmosphere  which  permeate  all  its 
parts  and  give  to  the  Bible  a  unique  place  among 
the  literatures  of  the  world.  This  is  the  divine 
element  due  to  inspiration.  It  is  this  element 
which  establishes  a  gulf  between  the  Hebrew 
account  of  creation  and  the  cosmologies  of  other 
nations.  Though  the  biblical  writers  had  very 
much  the  same  idea  about  the  form  and  general 


60  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

arrangement  of  the  visible  world  as  we  find  among 
other  peoples — ideas  that  have  satisfied  at  all 
times  the  majority  of  men  even  among  nations 
with  a  pretense  to  culture,  namely,  the  cos- 
mology of  appearances — these  ideas  were  all 
connected  with  their  sublime  faith  in  Jehovah: 
to  his  omnipotence  they  referred  the  existence  of 
the  world,  and  they  made  all  its  changes  depend 
entirely  on  his  will.  In  their  monotheistic  religion 
they  secured  the  foundation  of  a  clear  and  simple 
cosmology  different  from  the  grotesque  cos- 
mologies of  other  nations  and  yet  not  beyond 
the  demands  of  men  of  a  primitive  type  and  of 
simple  mind,  who  were  full  of  a  lively  imagination, 
but  not  much  accustomed  to  analyze  phenomena 
or  their  causes. 

In  this  connection  it  may  prove  helpful  to 
remember  what,  according  to  the  biblical  view- 
point and  in  the  light  of  history,  was  the  con- 
tribution of  Israel  to  the  development  of  the 
human  race.  "Israel,"  says  G.  W.  Jordan, (^^)  "is 
comparatively  young,  politically  it  is  provincial, 
socially  it  is  not  brilliant,  in  the  realm  of  science 
it  is  narrow  and  dependent;  yet  when  we  lay 
stress  on  these  limitations  we  only  cause  the 
peculiar  glory  of  this  nation's  life  to  stand  out 
more  clearly;  it  has  its  own  individuality;  its 
real  leaders  are  men  of  genius,  their  ambition  is 
to  speak  in  the  name  of  the  eternal  king;  they 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  61 

hear  the  divine  message  and  claim  for  it  the 
supreme  significance."  This  is  the  judgment  of 
a  Bible  student.  The  same  truth  is  expressed  in 
the  words  of  one  who  approaches  the  Bible  from 
the  viewpoint  of  the  scientist,  namely,  the  eminent 
Italian  astronomer,  Schiaparelli(^^) :  "Their  [the 
Hebrews]  natural  gifts,  as  well  as  the  course  of 
events,  carried  them  to  a  different  mission  [from 
that  of  Greece  and  Rome]  of  no  smaller  importance 
— that  of  purifying  the  religious  sentiment  and 
of  preparing  the  way  for  monotheism.  Of  this 
way  they  mark  the  first  clear  traces.  In  the 
laborious  accomplishment  of  this  great  task 
Israel  lived,  suffered,  and  completely  exhausted 
itself.  Israel's  history,  legislation,  and  literature 
were  essentially  coordinated  toward  this  end; 
science  and  art  were  for  Israel  of  secondary  im- 
portance. No  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  steps 
of  the  Jews'  advance  in  the  field  of  scientific 
conceptions  and  speculations  were  small  and 
feeble;  no  wonder  that  in  such  respects  they 
were  easily  vanquished  by  their  neighbors  on  the 
Nile  and  the  Euphrates." 

In  conclusion:  Permanent  harmony  between 
science  and  the  Bible  will  be  secured  when  each 
is  assigned  to  its  legitimate  sphere.  Science  has 
a  right  to  ask  that,  if  men  are  seeking  purely 
scientific  information,  they  should  turn  to  recent 
text-books  in  geology,   astronomy,   or  the  other 


G2  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

sciences.  But  in  the  sphere  to  which  Jesus  and 
the  New  Testament  writers  assigned  the  Old 
Testament  science  cannot  deny  or  seriously  ques- 
tion its  inspiration  or  permanent  value.  Un- 
prejudiced science  has  never  done  this.  It  is 
perfectly  ready  to  recognize  the  inestimable  reli- 
gious and  ethical  value  of  even  those  Old  Testament 
narratives  which  refer  to  scientific  facts,  not 
because  of  their  scientific  teaching,  but  because 
of  the  presence  of  eternal  truth  in  the  crude  form 
of  primitive  science.  Fair-minded  scientists  read- 
ily admit  that  if  anyone  wishes  to  know  what 
connection  the  world  has  with  God,  if  he  seeks 
to  trace  back  all  that  now  is  to  the  very  fountain 
head  of  life,  if  he  desires  to  discover  some  unifying 
principle,  some  illuminating  purpose  in  the  history 
of  the  world,  he  may  still  turn  to  the  early  chap- 
ters of  Genesis  as  a  safe  guide. 

What,  then,  is  the  bearing  of  the  conclusions 
of  modern  science  upon  the  permanent  value  of 
the  Old  T(istament?  Science  has  compelled  the 
Bible  student  to  withdraw  the  attention  from  the 
nonessential  and  secondary,  and  to  concentrate 
it  upon  the  heart  and  substance.  In  doing  this 
it  has  established  upon  a  much  firmer  basis  the 
conviction  that,  whatever  the  scientific  value  of 
scripture  may  be  or  may  not  be,  the  apostle  was 
right  when  he  wrote  that  "the  sacred  writings  .  .  . 
are  able   to  make  wise   unto  salvation   through 


THE  OT.l)  TESTAMENT  63 

faith  which  is  in  C-hrist  Josus.  Evory  scripture 
inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for  teaching,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  which  is 
in  righteousness:  that  the  man  of  God  may  be 
complete,  furnished  completely  unto  every  good 
work."(^') 

NOTES  ON  CHAPTER  II 

(')  Burgon,  Inspiration  and  Interpretation,  p.  89. 

C)  Presbyterian  Review,  1881,  p.  238. 

(0  Josh.  10.  12. 

(*)  The  Bible — Its  Meaning  and  Supremacy,  p.  160. 

(')  In  a  brief  treatment  it  seems  preferable  to  confine  the 
discussion  to  a  specific  concrete  case;  therefore  this 
chapter  deals  almost  exclusively  with  questions  cen- 
tering around  the  subject  of  cosmogony. 

(*)  The  margin  of  the  Authorized  Version  still  gives  the 
chronology  of  Archbishop  Ussher  to  that  effect. 

(')  Chapter  IV,  1. 

i»)  The  Expositor,  1902,  pp.  159,  160. 

(")  It  requires  but  a  reading  of  the  "proofs"  of  the  op- 
posite view  to  understand  their  weakness.     Com- 
pare Expositor,  1886,  pp.  287-289. 
('")  The  book  of  Genesis,  p.  4. 

(")  Another  difficulty  has  been  found  in  the  statement  of 
Genesis  that  "vegetation"  was  complete  two  days 
before  animal  life  appeared,  but  the  disagreement 
is  more  apparent  than  real.  The  geological  record, 
it  is  true,  shows  many  more  animal  than  plant 
remains  in  the  very  ancient  rocks.  It  was  not 
until  Devonian  and  Carboniferous  times  that  the 
plants  became  very  abundant,  as  far  as  the  geo- 
logical records  go.  Indeed,  in  the  oldest  rocks  in 
which  animal  remains  occur,  no  plant  remains 
have  been  discovered.     However,  this  is  not  to  be 


64  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

taken  as  proving  that  animals  existed  before  plants, 
because  low  forms  of  the  latter,  having  no  hard 
parts,  would  be  preserved  with  difficulty.  More- 
over, in  some  of  the  primitive  forms,  it  is  not  easy 
to  distinguish  plants  from  animals.  But,  apart 
from  the  records  in  the  rocks,  both  biologists  and 
geologists  believe  that  plants  existed  as  early  as 
animals,  if  not  earlier,  for  the  latter  needed  the  former 
to  live  upon.  An  eminent  geologist,  Professor  U.  S. 
Grant,  of  Northwestern  University,  has  expressed  his 
opinion  to  the  writer  in  these  words:  "It  seems  to 
me  that,  viewed  in  an  abstract  way,  the  Genesis 
statement  of  vegetation  appearing  before  animal 
life  is  not  far  from  correct." 

(")  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  25. 

(")  Natural  Theology,  Vol.  I,  pp.  229,  230. 

(")  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  Vol.  I,  p.  cxxix. 

(")  The  Testimony  of  the  Rocks,  Lecture  IV. 

C)  Reconciliation  of  Science  and  Religion,  pp.  356ff.; 
compare  also  Pre-Adamites,  passim. 

(")  Origin  of  the  World  According  to  Revelation  and 
Science,  passim. 

('«)  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1885,  pp.  201flf. 

{'•)  The  Conflict  of  Truth,  pp.  162ff. 

('")  Kurtz,  Miller,  Dawson,  Dana,  and  the  rest. 

('■)  Expositor,  1880,  p.  38. 

(")  The  writer  wants  it  clearly  understood  that  an  "ideal," 
harmony,  as  described  above,  can  be  established. 
He  is  equally  certain,  however,  that  the  harmony 
cannot  be  carried  into  details. 

(»)  Psa.  19.  1,  2. 

C*)  Expository  Times,  October,  1907,  p.  20. 

(")  See  above.  Chapter  I,  p.  12. 

i^)  Presbyterian  Review,  1881,  p.  239. 

(")  Marcus  Dods,  The  Book  of  Genesis,  pp.  4,  5. 

(=*«)  Presbyterian  Review,  1881,  p.  239. 

i^)  Expository  Times,  October,  1907,  p.  20. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  65 

('")  Surely,  there  is  not  the  slightest  claim  in  Scripture 
that  Moses  or  any  other  biblical  writer  received 
divine  information  concerning  the  beginnings  of  the 
universe;  nor  is  there  anything  to  support  the  as- 
sumption that  the  account  of  creation  was  super- 
naturally  revealed  to  Adam,  and  that  from  him  it 
was  transmitted  word  for  word  through  the  families 
of  the  pious  antediluvians,  of  Noah,  Shem,  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  Jacob,  etc.,  until  it  was  finally  received 
and  committed  to  writing  by  Moses. 

(")  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  5. 

(")  H.  E.  Ryle,  The  Early  Narratives  of  Genesis,  pp.  5,  6. 

('')  Bibhcal  Criticism  and  Modern  Thought,  p.  90. 

('*)  Astronomy  in  the  Old  Testament,  p.  1. 

O  2  Tim.  3.  15-17;  on  the  permanent  value  and  signifi- 
cance of  the  Genesis  narratives;  see  also  below,  pp. 
234ff. 


66  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Old  Testament  and  Modern  Criticism 

No  careful  observer  cun  doubt  that  modern 
criticism  has  exerted  a  marked  influence  upon  the 
attitude  of  many  Christian  people  toward  the 
Bible.  Both  those  in  sympathy  with  new  ideas 
and  those  opposed  to  them  frequently  speak  of 
the  crisis  which  this  criticism  has  brought  about. 
"It  do(^s  seem,"  says  John  IC.  McFadyen,  a  be- 
liever in  the  methods  and  results  of  modern 
criticism,  "that  the  Church  to-day  in  all  her 
branches  is  face  to  face  with  a  crisis  of  the  most 
serious  kind."(')  On  the  other  hand,  John  Smith, 
a  detcrmhied  opponent  of  criticism,  writes  con- 
cerning tlie  conclusions  of  the  latter:  "They  con- 
flict with  the  profoundest  certitudes  of  the  faith, 
nmst  inevitably  alter  the  foundation  on  which 
from  the  beginning  our  holy  religion  has  stood 
before  the  world,  and,  consequently,  so  far  as  a 
theory  can,  must  obstruct  her  mission  and  abridge 
her  influence. "(^)  Whether  the  crisis  is  as  acute 
as  is  here  implied  or  not,  there  seems  to  be  much 
concern  among  devout  believers  in  the  Bible 
about  the  bearing  of  modern  criticism  upon  the 
value  of  the  book  they  dearly  love.     In  the  nature 


THE  OLD  TESTAMEXT  67 

of  the  case,  limitation  of  space  forbids  an  ex- 
haustive discussion  of  this  interesting  subject  here. 
There  are,  however,  throe  questions  which  are 
worthy  of  serious  consideration:  (1)  Wliat  is 
modem  criticism?  (2)  What  are  the  more  im- 
portant conclusions  of  criticism  that  have  secured 
wide  recognition?  (3)  What  is  the  bearing  of 
these  conclusions,  if  true,  upon  the  Christian  view 
of  the  Old  Testament? 

\Vhat,  then,  is  biblical  criticism?  It  is  defined 
by  Nash  as  "the  free  study  of  all  the  facts,"(^) 
which  definition  McFadyen  expands  so  as  to  read, 
"the  free  and  reverent  study  of  all  the  biblical 
facts."(*)  Criticism  is  stiidy,  which  means  careful 
investigation  rather  than  superficial  reading  fol- 
lowed by  hasty  or  unfounded  conclusions.  The 
investigation  is  free  in  the  sense  that  though  it 
is  not  disrespectful  to  traditional  beliefs,  it  is 
not  prevented  by  them  from  marking  out  new 
paths  if  the  facts  so  demand.  It  is  reverent  be- 
cause it  deals  with  a  book  that  has  played  a 
unique  part  in  the  religious  life  and  thought  of 
many  centuries,  and  has  been  received  as  a 
book  in  whieli  tlie  voice  of  God  may  be  heard. 
It  is  primarily  a  study  of  the  facts  presented  by 
the  book,  not  of  theories  or  speculations,  though 
in  the  study  of  these  facts  much  may  be  learned 
from  the  theories  of  the  past,  and  the  study  may 
give  rise  to  new  theories.     In  order  to  be  thor- 


G8  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

oughly  scientific,  it  must  li;ivc  due  n^gurd  for  all 
the  facts  in  the  case.  For  convenience  sake  it  has 
become  customary  to  distinguish  four  phases  of 
Old  Testament,  or  bibUcal,  criticism:  (1)  Textual 
Criticism;  (2)  Linguistic  Criticism;  (3)  Literary 
Criticism;  and  (4)  Historical  Criticism. 

Close  students  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old 
Testament  have  been  compelled  to  admit  that 
even  the  oldest  Hebrew  manuscripts  now  known 
are  not  free  from  errors  and  blemishes,  and  it  is 
the  office  of  textual  criticism  to  remove  such 
errors  by  the  use  of  all  legitimate  methods  and 
means  and  to  restore  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the 
author.  The  presence  of  corruptions  in  the  text 
is  established  by  facts  like  these:  (1)  There  are 
passages  in  which  the  text  as  it  stands  cannot 
be  translated  without  violence  to  the  laws  of 
grammar,  or,  which  are  irreconcilable  with  the 
context  or  with  other  passages.  For  example,  in 
1  Sam.  ]3.  1  the  Authorized  Version  reads,  "Saul 
reigned  one  year,  and  when  he  had  reigned  two 
years  over  Israel."  This  translation  does  violence 
to  the  laws  of  Hebrew  grammar.  The  Hebrew 
reads,  literally,  "The  son  of  a  year  was  Saul  in 
his  reigning,"  which  may  be  rendered,  "Saul  was 
a  year  old  when  he  began  to  reign."  The  narra- 
tives concerning  events  in  the  life  of  Saul  before 
he  became  king  make  it  clear  that  this  statement 
is  not  correct.     Perhaps  the  scribe,  in  writing  the 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  69 

formula,  which  is  the  usual  formula  for  stating 
a  king's  age  at  his  accession,  left  a  space  for 
the  numeral  to  l>e  filled  in  later,  and  forgot  the 
omission;  or  the  numeral  has  accidentally  dropped 
out.  In  this  case,  it  is  the  duty  of  textual  crit- 
icism to  supi)ly,  if  possible,  the  age  of  Saul  when 
he  was  made  king.  In  the  absence  of  all  ex- 
ternal evidence  the  textual  critic  must  fall  back 
upon  conjecture.  This  the  translators  of  the 
Revised  Version  did,  for  in  the  English  Revised 
Version  we  find  in  brackets  the  word  "thirty," 
in  the  American  Revised  Version  "forty."  In 
this  special  case  the  assured  results  of  textual 
criticism  are  purely  negative,  in  that  they  have 
establishetl  the  fact  that  the  present  text  caimot 
be  correct.  The  attempt  to  restore  the  orig- 
inal text  rests  upon  conjecture.  (2)  Parallel 
passages  differ  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  it 
certain  that  the  variations  are  largely  due  to 
textual  corruption.  A  good  illustration  is  seen 
in  Psa.  18,  when  compared  with  2  Sam.  22.  These 
two  passages  were  midoubtedly  identical  in  the 
beginning;  but  even  the  oldest  existing  manu- 
scripts show  more  than  seventy  variants  between 
the  two  chapters.  (3)  Some  of  the  ancient 
versions  contain  readings  which  often  bear  a 
strong  stamp  of  probability  and  remove  or  lessen 
the  difficulties  of  the  Hebrew  text.  For  example, 
in  Josh.  9.  4,  where  the  Hebrew  reads,  "And  they 


70  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

went  and  made  as  if  they  had  been  ambassadors," 
the  Septuagint  reads,  "And  they  went  and  pro- 
visioned themselves."  The  latter  reading  is  sup- 
ported by  nearly  all  the  ancient  versions,  and 
seems  more  probable  than  that  of  the  Hebrew 
text.  Another  illustration  of  a  similar  character 
is  fomid  in  Psa.  22.  16c,  which  is  translated  by 
both  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised  Version, 
"They  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet."  This, 
however,  is  not  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  at 
all,  for  it  reacis,  "I>ike  a  lion,  my  hands  and  my 
feet."  In  this  case  the  New  Testament,  as  well 
as  the  Latin  and  Syriac  translations,  supports  the 
reading  of  the  Septuagint.  Passages  like  these, 
in  which  the  text  has  evidently  suffered  in  the 
course  of  transmission,  might  be  multiplied  a 
hundredfold,  and  it  is  generally  considered  a 
legitimate  ambition  to  attempt  the  restoration  of 
the  Hebrew  text  to  its  original  form. 

Linguistic  criticism  deals  with  difficult  and 
obscure  passages.  Sometimes  the  meaning  of 
single  words  or  phrases  is  uncertain,  as,  for  example, 
in  Isa.  53.  1,  which  reads,  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion, "Who  hath  believed  our  report?"  The 
margin  gives  as  alternatives  for  "report"  the 
words  "doctrine"  and  "hearing."  The  Revised 
Version  reads,  "Who  hath  believed  our  message?" 
with  a  marginal  note,  "Or,  that  which  we  have 
heard."     In  form  the  word  translated  "message" 


THP]  OLD  TESTAMENT  71 

is  a  passive  participle,  meaning,  literally,  "that 
which  has  been  heard."  Surely,  no  one  would 
consider  "report,"  "doctrine,"  "hearing,"  "mes- 
sage," etc.,  synon5mious.  It  is  the  duty  of  lin- 
guistic criticism  to  determine  the  exact  meaning 
of  the  word.  Sometimes  grammatical  construc- 
tions are  ambiguous.  Very  familiar  are  the  words 
in  Isa,  6.  3,  "Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  Jehovah  of  hosts: 
the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory."  The  margin 
suggests  as  an  alternative  for  the  last  clause, 
"the  fullness  of  the  whole  earth  is  his  glory," 
which  might  mean  something  entirely  different 
from  the  ordinary  rendering.  There  are  other 
passages,  some  among  the  sublimest  prophetic 
utterances,  in  which  it  is  by  no  means  clear  whether 
the  reference  is  to  the  past  or  to  the  present  or 
to  the  future.  There  is,  indeed,  plenty  of  room 
for  the  most  painstaking  work  of  the  linguistic 
critic. 

The  literary  criticism  concerns  itself  with  the 
literary  history  of  Old  Testament  books.  The 
Bible  may  be  more  than  a  human  production,  but 
in  outward  form  it  has  the  appearance  of  an 
ordinary  work  of  literature;  and,  so  far  as  its 
history  as  a  collection  of  literary  productions  is 
concerned,  it  has  not  escaped  the  fortunes  or 
misfortunes  of  other  ancient  literary  works.  It 
is  a  well-known  fact  that  extra-biblical  books, 
religious  and  secular,  have  come  down  from  the 


7<}  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

distant  past  bearing  the  names  of  men  who  cannot 
have  been  their  authors;  for  example,  the  Gospel 
of  Peter,  or  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah.  Some 
ancient  books  have  been  interpolated  and  added 
to  from  time  to  time;  for  example,  the  Sibylline 
Oracles,  the  religious  books  of  the  Hindus.  Some 
ancient  books  are  compilations  rather  than  original 
productions;  for  example,  the  Diatessaron  of 
Tatian,  or  the  religious  books  of  the  Babylonians, 
which  give  abundant  evidence  of  compilation. 
The  discoveries  of  these  phenomena  in  extra- 
biblical  books  naturally  raised  the  question 
whether  similar  phenomena  might  not  be  found 
in  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  the 
duty  of  literary  criticism  to  throw  light  on  these 
questions;  to  decide  whether  all  the  Old  Testament 
books  are  rightly  ascribed  to  the  men  whose 
names  they  bear,  whether  they  are  original  por- 
ductions  or  compilations  from  earlier  material,  and 
whether  any  of  the  books  have  received  additions 
or  interpolations  in  the  course  of  their  literary 
history. 

Hand  in  hand  with  literary  criticism  goes 
historical  criticism.  The  student  of  Old  Testament 
history  seeks  to  trace  the  development  of  the 
history  of  Israel  by  combining  in  a  scientific 
manner  the  historical  material  scattered  through- 
out the  Old  Testament.  In  doing  this  he  is 
compelled  to  determine  the  value  of  the  sources 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  73 

from  which  he  gathers  information.  To  do  this 
is  the  duty  of  historical  criticism.  It  inquires, 
for  example,  whether  the  records  are  approx- 
imately contemporaneous  with  the  events  they 
record;  if  so,  whether  the  writers  were  qualified 
to  observe  the  events  accurately,  or  to  record 
and  interpret  them  correctly;  and,  if  the  accounts 
were  written  a  considerable  time  subsequent  to 
the  events  recorded,  whether  they  were  colored 
in  any  way  by  the  beliefs  and  practices  of  the 
time  in  which  they  were  written  or  compiled. 
This  line  of  investigation  is  almost  thrust  upon 
the  Bible  student  by  a  comparison  of  the  books 
of  Kings  with  the  books  of  Chronicles,  which  in 
many  portions  cover  the  same  ground;  and  yet, 
there  are  marked  differences  between  the  descrip- 
tions of  the  two. 

These  are  the  different  phases  of  criticism. 
Ordinarily,  however,  only  two  kinds  are  dis- 
tinguished: the  lower,  or  textual  criticism,  and 
the  higher  criticism.  The  aims  of  textual  criticism 
are  described  above.  The  higher  criticism  com- 
bines the  functions  of  literary  and  historical 
criticism,  while  linguistic  criticism  is  considered 
a  part  of  exegesis  or  interpretation,  not  a  separate 
branch  of  Bible  study.  The  legitimacy  of  textual 
criticism  is  universally  recognized.  Its  importance 
in  a  comprehensive  study  of  the  Bible  is  clearly 
implied  in  these  words  of  W.  H.  Green,  a  genera- 


74  THE  CHKISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

tion  ago  the  best  known  defender  of  the  tra- 
ditional view  of  the  Old  Testament:  "Its  function 
is  to  determine,  by  a  careful  examination  of  all 
the  evidence  bearing  upon  the  case,  the  condition 
of  the  sacred  text,  the  measure  of  its  correspondence 
with,  or  divergence  from,  the  exact  language  of 
the  inspired  penman,  and  by  means  of  all  available 
helps  to  remove  the  errors  which  may  have  gained 
admission  to  it  from  whatever  cause,  and  to 
restore  the  text  to  its  pristine  purity  as  it  came 
from  the  hands  of  the  original  writers.  ...  It  is 
not  an  arbitrary  but  a  judicial  process,  based 
on  fixed  and  intelligible  principles  and  conducted 
in  a  determinate  manner,  in  which  all  the  evidence 
is  diligently  collected,  thoroughly  sifted,  and 
accurately  weighed,  and  the  decision  given  in 
accordance  with  the  ascertained  facts. "(■') 

No  exception  is  taken  to  linguistic  criticism 
as  a  legitimate  part  of  exegesis,  but  at  the  mention 
of  higher  criticism  many  good  men  and  women 
become  greatly  disturbed,  for  they  seem  to  look 
upon  it  as  a  handmaid  of  Satan.  A  few  expres- 
sions will  illustrate  the  feeling  with  which  some 
regard  this  kind  of  study:  One  writer  says,  "Neither 
hard  times  nor  higher  criticism  nor  infidelity  .  .  . 
has  any  effect  upon  the  sale  of  the  Divine  Scrip- 
tures." He  evidently  places  higher  criticism  on 
a  par  with  infidelity.  Again:  "The  so-called 
higher  critics,   it   is  well  known,   are   constantly 


TIIK  OLD    I'KSTAMENT  75 

trying  to  shake  the  faith  of  the  Christian  by 
telling  him  that  the  books  of  the  Bible  were  not 
written  by  the  men  whose  names  are  usually 
given  as  the  human  authors."  Another  writer 
declares  that  the  higher  critics  allege  that  the 
Bible  is  "the  off-spring  of  incompetence  and 
fraud."  One  more  quotation  may  suffice:  "Higher 
criticism  tends  invariably  ...  to  absolute  rational- 
ism and  the  discrediting  of  inspiration."  Now,  if 
higher  criticism  is  on  a  par  with  infidelity,  if  it 
declares  the  Bible  to  be  the  "offspring  of  incom- 
petence and  fraud,"  if  it  constantly  tries  to  shake 
the  faith  of  Christians,  if  it  tends  invariably  to 
absolute  rationalism  and  discredits  inspiration — 
if  it  does  these  things,  then  the  Christian  Church 
may  well  look  upon  it  with  dread  and  alarm. 
Whether  or  not  higher  criticism  is  guilty  of  the 
things  charged  against  it  will  probably  appear  in 
the  further  discussion,  for  from  now  on  chief 
emphasis  will  be  placed  upon  the  bearing  of  the 
higher  criticism  on  the  Christian  view  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

First  of  all,  it  may  be  well  to  define,  if  possible, 
the  term  "higher  criticism."  It  is  too  often 
assumed  by  those  who  should  know  better,  that 
the  adjective  "higher"  exhibits  the  arrogance  of 
those  using  it,  who  claim  thereby  an  unwar- 
ranted precedence  for  their  methods.  This  as- 
sumption is  erroneous,  for  the  adjective  is  used 


76  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

simply  to  distinguish  this  kind  of  criticism  from 
tlio  lower  or  textual  criticism,  which,  since  its 
purpose  is  to  fix  the  exact  text  of  a  book,  nec- 
essarily precedes  the  application  of  the  processes 
of  the  higher  criticism.  The  designation  may  be 
unfortunate,  but  thus  far  no  clearer  or  less  objec- 
tionable substitute  has  been  found.  But  what 
is  higher  criticism?  Higher  criticism  may  be 
defined  as  a  process  of  scientific  investigation  for 
the  purpose  of  determining  the  origin,  original 
form,  and  intended  value  of  literar}''  productions. 
It  cannot  be  emphasized  too  strongly  that  higher 
criticism  is  nothing  more  than  a  process  of  study 
or  investigation.  It  is  not  a  set  of  conclusions 
respecting  the  books  of  the  Bible;  it  is  not  a 
philosophical  principle  underlying  the  investiga- 
tion; it  is  not  a  certain  attitude  of  mind  toward 
the  Bible;  it  is  not  a  theory  of  inspiration  nor  a 
denial  of  inspiration.  Higher  criticism  is  none  of 
these  things.  It  is  simply  a  process  of  study  to 
determine  certain  truths  concerning  literary  pro- 
ductions. 

Again,  higher  criticism,  as  a  process  of  study,  is 
not  confined  to  the  study  of  the  Bible.  It  was 
applied  to  extra-biblical  books  long  before  there 
was  any  thought  of  applying  it  to  the  Old  or 
New  Testament.  Eichhorn,  who  first  applied  the 
term  to  Old  Testament  study,  has  this  to  say: 
"I    have    been    obliged    to    bestow    the    greatest 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  77 

amount  of  labor  on  a  hitherto  entirely  unworked 
fiolcl:  the  investigation  of  the  inner  constitution 
of  the  separate  books  of  the  Old  Testament  by 
the  aid  of  the  higher  criticism,  a  new  name  to  no 
humanisC  {^) 

Once  more:  the  higher  criticism  as  such  is  not 
opposed  to  traditional  views.  In  the  words  of 
Professor  Zenos:  "Its  relation  to  the  old  and  the 
new  views  respectively  is  one  of  indifference. 
It  may  result  in  the  confirmation  of  the  old,  or 
in  the  substitution  of  the  new  for  the  old.  ...  It 
is  no  respecter  of  antiquity  or  novelty;  its  aim 
is  to  discover  and  verify  the  truth,  to  bring  facts 
to  light  whether  these  validate  or  invalidate  pre- 
viously held  opinions. "(0  It  is  a  grave  mistake, 
therefore,  to  attribute  to  higher  criticism  an 
essentially  destructive  purpose.  In  reality,  it  has 
confirmed  traditional  views  at  least  as  often  as 
it  has  shown  them  to  be  untenable.  It  does  not 
approach  its  investigations  even  with  a  suspicion 
of  the  correctness  of  tradition;  it  starts  out 
with  the  tradition,  it  accepts  it  as  correct  until 
the  process  of  investigation  has  brought  to  light 
facts  and  indications  which  cannot  be  harmonized 
with  tradition.  In  such  a  case  criticism  believes 
itself  bound  to  supply  a  satisfactory  explanation 
of  the  facts,  though  such  explanation  may  be 
contrary  to  the  claims  of  tradition.  Any  student 
who    approaches   the    inquiry  in   a    spirit   differ- 


78  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

ent  from  that  here  indicated  introduces  into 
his  investigation  elements  that  are  not  a  part  of 
higher  criticism  as  such,  and  the  latter  cannot 
and  should  not  be  held  accountable  for  them. 

That  it  is  desirable  to  answer  questions  con- 
cerning the  origin,  form,  and  value  of  biblical 
books  no  one  will  dispute.  C.  M.  Mead,  exceed- 
ingly cautious  and  conservative,  says:  "I  regard 
the  higher  criticism  as  not  only  legitimate  but 
as  useful,  and  indiscriminate  condenmation  of  it 
as  foolish.  Genuine  criticism  is  nothing  but  the 
search  after  truth,  and  of  this  there  cannot  be 
too  much."(*)  No  literary  production  in  the 
Bible  or  outside  of  the  Bible  can  be  fully  under- 
stood unless  the  interpreter  has  a  full  knowledge 
of  its  origin,  its  author,  and  its  first  readers. 
When,  where,  by  whom,  to  whom,  under  what 
circumstances,  for  what  purpose? — an  answer  to 
these  and  similar  questions  will  wonderfully  illu- 
minate the  message  of  a  book.  A  knowledge  of 
the  form  of  the  writing  is  also  essential  to  a  proper 
understanding  of  the  same.  Is  it  history  or 
poetry?  is  it  narrative  or  prediction?  or  any  one 
of  the  various  kinds  of  literature?  In  a  similar 
manner  it  is  important,  though  not  always  easy, 
to  know  the  value  a  given  literary  work  was 
intended  to  have.  Is  it  to  be  understood  as 
literal  history?  Is  its  essential  purpose  didactic, 
without  special   regard    for   historic   accuracy   in 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  79 

every  detail?  An;  the  religious  and  ethical  truths 
taught  intended  to  be  final,  or  do  they  mark  a 
stage  in  the  development  toward  perfection  and 
finality?  These  and  other  important  questions  of 
a  similar  nature  the  higher  criticism  seeks  to 
answer. 

Some  one  may  say,  "Scholars  in  all  ages  have 
sought  to  answer  these  questions;  why  is  it,  then, 
that  modern  higher  criticism  reaches  conclusions 
concerning  the  origin,  form,  and  value  of  Old 
Testament  writings  not  dreamed  of  a  few  cen- 
turies ago?"  This  is  a  legitimate  question,  but 
the  answer  is  not  far  to  seek.  It  may  best  be 
answered  by  asking  another  question:  Men  in  all 
ages  have  studied  the  earth,  the  sun,  the  stars, 
and  other  phenomena  of  nature;  how  is  it  that 
modern  scientists  have  reached  conclusions  un- 
known and  undreamed  of  a  few  centuries  ago? 
The  modern  higher  criticism,  like  all  modern 
science,  is  the  outgrowth  of  the  awakening  during 
the  Middle  Ages  which  revolutionized  the  whole 
world  of  science,  literature,  and  religion.  The 
Renaissance  aroused  men's  interest  in  literature 
and  science,  the  Reformation  aroused  men's 
interest  in  religion  as  a  personal  experience.  In 
the  Renaissance  men  began  to  think  for  them- 
selves in  matters  of  science  and  literature;  in  the 
Reformation  they  began  to  think  for  themselves 
in   matters   of   religion.     It   was   inevitable   that 


80  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

the  awakening  of  thought  aiul  the  substitution 
of  reason  for  authority  in  science,  secular  Hterature, 
and  secular  liistory  should  ultimately  affect  sacred 
history  and  sacred  literature  as  well.(®) 

Chronologically,  it  is  true,  the  work  of  higher 
criticism  began  even  before  the  time  of  the 
Renaissance  among  Spanish  Jews.  But  this  Jewish 
criticism  did  not  at  the  time  exert  any  influence 
in  the  Christian  Church.  Only  after  criticism  had 
secured  a  foothold  among  Christian  scholars  were 
the  results  of  Jewish  investigation  made  use  of. 
In  the  same  way  the  purely  negative  conclusions 
of  some  of  the  early  Christian  heretics,  based 
upon  dogmatic  considerations  rather  than  his- 
torical investigations,  have  no  organic  connection 
with  the  investigations  and  results  of  modern 
criticism.  It  is  perfectly  correct,  therefore,  to 
state  that  the  modern  higher  criticism  had  its 
birth  in  the  great  awakening  of  the  Renaissance 
and  the  Reformation.  They  gave  to  it  a  life 
and  an  impetus  which  from  that  day  to  this  have 
not  abated  in  the  least.  Some  of  the  reformers 
themselves  and  their  coworkers  advanced  views 
which  later  investigation  has  confirmed  and  ex- 
panded. Carlstadt,  for  example,  the  friend  and 
coworker  of  Luther,  published  in  1520  an  essay 
in  which  he  argued,  on  the  groimd  that  the  style 
of  narration  in  the  account  of  Moses's  death  which, 
he    believed,    was   not   written    by   Moses,    was 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  81 

the  same  as  in  the  preceding  chapters,  that  it 
might  be  held  that  Moses  did  not  Avi'ite  the  entire 
Pentateuch.  The  freedom  with  which  Luther 
criticized  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament 
books  is  well  known.  Concerning  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, he  admitted  tliat  the  books  of  Kings  were 
more  credible  than  Chronicles.  "What  would  it 
matter,"  he  asks,  "if  Moses  did  not  write  the 
Pentateuch?"  He  thinks  it  probable  that  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Hosea,  and  Ecclesiastes  received  their 
final  form  at  the  hands  of  redactors.  The  testi- 
mony of  the  psalm  titles  he  does  not  regard  as 
conclusive.  He  admits  chronological  difficulties 
and  contradictions  in  the  statements  of  historical 
facts.  He  concedes  that  we  do  not  always  hear 
God  himself  speaking  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Esther  might  wvW  have  been  left  out  of  the  canon, 
and  First  Maccabees  might  have  been  included. 
If  this  is  not  criticism,  what  is? 

The  case  of  Luther  has  been  mentioned  simply 
to  show  the  absurdity  of  the  claim  that  modern 
higher  criticism  is  the  outgrowth  of  German 
rationalism  or  English  deism  or  infidelity;  or  that 
a  man  who  pursues  Old  Testament  study  on  the 
line  of  the  higher  criticism  is  necessarily  an  infidel, 
a  rationalist,  or  a  fool.  True,  there  have  been 
and  are  those  out  of  sympathy  with  Christianity 
or  the  Bible  who  have  employed  critical  methods 
in  carrying  on  their  anti-Christian  warfare;  but 


82  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

such  misuse  of  critical  methods  no  more  proves 
the  illegitimacy  of  this  process  of  investigation 
than  the  employment  of  a  surgical  instru- 
ment, which,  m  the  hands  of  a  skillful  surgeon, 
may  be  the  means  of  saving  a  diseased  organism, 
by  a  murderer  to  carry  out  his  destructive  aim, 
would  prove  that  the  use  of  all  surgical  instru- 
ments is  miscientific  or  criminal.  The  vast  ma- 
jority of  the  so-called  higher  critics  do  not  deserve 
the  denunciations  heaped  upon  them  by  some 
who  consider  themselves  sole  defenders  of  the 
faith.  Most  of  them  are  Christian  men  whose 
loyalty  to  Christ,  whose  devotion  to  the  truth, 
and  whose  sincerity  of  motive  no  one  has  reason 
or  right  to  question  or  doubt.  It  is  exceedingly 
unfortunate  that  many  writers  have  failed  to 
recognize  this  fact.  No  one  acquainted  with  the 
history  of  biblical  criticism  can  accept  the  follow- 
ing as  a  true  characterization  of  serious  critics:  "I 
mean  by  professional  critic,  one  who  spends  his 
time  and  strength  in  trying  to  find  some  error  or  dis- 
crepancy in  the  Bible;  and,  if  he  thmks  he  does,  re- 
joiceth  as  'one  who  findeth  great  spoil';  who  hopes, 
while  he  works,  that  he  may  succeed,  thinking 
thereby  to  obtain  a  name  and  notoriety  for  him- 
self. "(^")  In  a  similar  spirit  Sir  Robert  Anderson 
speaks  of  "the  foreign  infidel  type  of  scholar  ...  as 
ignorant  of  man  and  his  needs  as  a  monk,  and  as 
ignorant  of  God  and  his  ways  as  a  monkey."(") 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  83 

Such  abuse  is  unchristian,  and  no  good  can  be 
accomplished  by  it.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is 
more  adequately  expressed  by  James  Orr  when  he 
says:  "There  are,  one  must  own,  few  outstanding 
scholars  at  the  present  day  on  the  Continent  or 
in  Britain — in  America  it  is  somewhat  different — 
who  do  not  in  greater  or  less  degree  accept  con- 
clusions regarding  the  Old  Testament  of  the  kind 
ordinarily  denominated  critical.  Yet  among  the 
foremost  are  many  whom  no  one  who  understands 
their  work  would  dream  as  classing  as  other  than 
believing,  and  defenders  of  revealed  religion. "(^^) 
Then,  after  mentioning  a  number  of  scholars,  he 
describes  them  as  "all  more  or  less  critics,  but 
all  convinced  upholders  of  supernatural  revelation." 
But  even  among  these  Christian,  evangelical, 
higher  critics  a  distinction  must  be  made  between 
two  classes.  The  one  may  be  called,  for  want 
of  a  better  name,  traditional,  because  its  adherents 
insist  that  their  investigations  on  the  line  of  the 
higher  criticism  have  confirmed  in  all  essentials 
the  positions  held  during  many  centuries.  It 
should  be  noted,  however,  that  many  scholars 
who  are  sometimes  quoted  as  upholders  of  the 
traditional  view  are  ready  to  make  many  con- 
cessions to  those  who  believe  that  the  tradi- 
tional views  are  no  longer  tenable.  (")  On  the 
other  hand  is  a  class  of  critics  which  may  be 
called     nontraditional,    critics    who     claim     that 


84  THE  CHETSTTA"Nr  VIEW  OP 

thoir  investigations,  while  confirming  the  truth  of 
many  traditional  positions,  compel  them  in  other 
cases  to  set  aside  the  traditional  views  in  favor 
of  some  more  in  accord  with  the  facts  in  the 
case.  It  may  be  difficult  to  state  all  the  causes 
responsible  for  the  differences  in  the  conclusions 
of  these  two  classes  of  critics.  However,  the  writ- 
ings of  some  scholars  in  the  former  class  seem  to 
show  that  the  authors  are  influenced,  to  some  ex- 
tent at  least,  by  the  fear  that  further  concessions 
would  affect  the  Christian  theory  of  inspiration. 
Another  cause  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  pres(int  generation  of  Old  Testament  scholars 
received  its  training  largely  at  the  hands  of  those 
accustomed  to  the  traditional  viewpoint;  the  influ- 
ence of  this  early  training  manifests  itself  to  some 
extent  in  the  present  attitude.  A  more  important 
cause,  however,  is  supplied  by  the  nature  of  the 
evidence  upon  the  basis  of  which  these  critical 
questions  must  be  settled.  Mathematical  demon- 
stration is  impossible  in  very  many  cases.  The 
critic  must  be  qualified  to  estimate  probabilities, 
and  various  degrees  of  probability,  depending  upon 
the  nature  of  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests.  In 
the  nature  of  the  case,  the  personal  element  enters 
into  the  estimate  of  the  degree  of  probability. 
What  to  some  may  appear  a  high  degree  of  prob- 
ability, or  amount  to  practical  certainty,  may  to 
another   investigator,   perhaps  less   familiar  with 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  85 

the  facts  in  the  case,  appear  of  less  value  and 
lead  him  to  reject  the  conclusion  entirely.  As 
long  as  this  condition  of  affairs  continues — and 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  ever  will 
be  otherwise — perfect  agreement  among  critical 
investigators  need  not  be  expected;  but  a  fair 
and  thorough  examination  of  the  facts  by  all 
must  be  insisted  upon. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge  upon  the  views 
of  the  traditional  class  of  critics,  for  theirs  are 
the  views  with  which  most  Christians  now  living 
have  been  familiar  since  their  childhood.  In 
order  to  understand,  however,  the  bearing  of  the 
nontraditional  criticism  upon  the  Christian  view 
of  the  Old  Testament  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
the  most  important  conclusions  of  the  nontradi- 
tional class  of  evangelical  criticism;  and  to  these 
conclusions  we  may  now  turn  our  attention. 

1.  Modern  criticism  has  placed  into  clearer 
light  the  progressive  character  of  Old  Testament 
revelation.  God  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day, 
and  forever,  but  man  has  taken  many  advance 
steps;  and  as  he  advanced  his  spiritual  capacities 
and  powers  of  apprehension  increased.  This 
growth  enabled  him  to  secure,  from  generation  to 
generation  and  from  century  to  century,  during  the 
Old  Testament  dispensation,  an  ever-broadening 
and  deepening  conception  of  the  nature  and 
character  of  God  and  of  his  will.     The  Old  Testa- 


86  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

ment  books,  says  Kent,  are  "the  harmonious 
and  many-sided  record  of  ten  centuries  of  stren- 
uous human  endeavor  to  know  and  to  do  the  will 
of  God,  and  of  his  full  and  gracious  response  to 
that  efifort."(") 

2.  Formerly  the  beginning  of  the  Old  Testament 
canon  was  traced  to  Moses.  He  was  thought  not 
only  to  have  written  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
but  to  have  given  to  them  official  sanction  as 
canonical  books.  To  these  books  were  gradually 
added  the  other  sacred  writings  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment on  the  authority  of  the  divinely  chosen 
successors  of  ]\Ioses,  like  Joshua,  Samuel,  and  the 
prophets.  The  close  of  the  canon  was  ascribed 
to  Ezra,  who,  according  to  later  views,  had  to 
share  the  honor  with  the  men  of  the  Great  Sjma- 
gogue.  Modern  criticism  assigns  new  dates  to 
some  of  the  Old  Testament  books;  it  believes 
that  the  exile  was  a  period  of  great  spiritual  and 
intellectual  activity,  and  a  number  of  books  are 
placed  subsequent  to  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  which 
in  itself  would  imply  a  denial  of  the  view  that 
the  canon  was  finally  closed  in  the  days  of  Ezra. 
The  modern  critical  view  is  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment books  were  canonized — whatever  the  dates 
of  their  writing — gradually  and  at  a  comparatively 
late  period.  The  canonization  of  the  Law  is 
placed  at  about  B.  C,  400,  that  of  the  Prophets 
between  B.  C.  250  and  B.  C.  180,  while  the  third 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  87 

division  of  the  Jewish  canon,  the  Writings,  is 
believed  to  have  acquired  canonical  authority  dur- 
ing the  second  and  first  centuries  B.  C. 

3.  Formerly  the  order  of  the  Old  Testament 
books  determined  largely  the  view  of  the  develop- 
ment of  Hebrew  religion.  Just  as  in  the  New 
Testament  the  Gospels  occupy  first  place,  the 
Epistles  being  expositions  of  the  principles  laid 
down  in  the  Gospels,  so  it  was  thought  that  the 
Law  of  the  Pentateuch,  coming  from  the  hands 
of  Moses,  served  as  the  basis  of  the  religious 
development  of  the  Hebrews  during  subsequent 
centuries.  The  prophets  were  looked  upon  chiefly 
as  expounders  and  interpreters  of  this  Law. 
Modern  criticism  has  introduced  a  change  of  view- 
point. It  does  not  deny  the  pre-exilic  existence 
of  all  law,  or  of  sacrifice,  or  of  a  ceremonial,  or  of 
other  priestly  elements,  but  it  believes  that  in 
the  religious  development  of  Israel,  the  pre-exilic 
period  was  preeminently  the  period  of  the  prophets, 
while  the  religious  life  during  the  post-exilic 
period  was  dominated  by  the  priests,  the  priestly 
type  of  religion  finding  literary  expression  in  the 
ceremonial  system  embodied  in  the  Pentateuch. 

4.  According  to  modern  criticism,  compilation 
had  a  prominent  place  in  the  production  of  Old 
Testament  books.  The  composite  character  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  touched  upon  in  the  next 
paragraph,   but,   in  addition,  it   is   believed   that 


88  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

there  Is  sufficient  evidence  to  establish  the  com- 
posite character  of  practically  all  the  other  his- 
torical books.  McFadyen  accurately  represents  the 
modern  viewpoint  when  he  says,  ''In  the  light  of 
all  these  facts  the  general  possibility,  if  not  the 
practical  certainty,  of  the  conipositeness  of  the 
historical  books  may  be  conceded. "(^'^)  Evidences 
of  compilation  are  seen  also  in  several  of  the 
prophetic  books.  The  assignment  of  Isaiah  and 
Zechariah  to  more  than  one  author  each  furnishes 
perhaps  the  best  known  examples,  but  other 
prophetic  books  are  similarly  divided. 

5.  The  Pentateuch  is  no  longer  assigned  in  its 
entirety  to  Moses;  it  is  thought,  rather,  to  contain 
material  selected  from  four  different  sources, 
which  the  compiler  had  before  him  in  writing. (*") 
These  documents  did  not  reach  their  final  form 
until  some  time  subsequent  to  Moses,  but  all  of 
them  contained  ancient  material,  much  of  it  going 
back  to  the  time  of  Moses,  some  of  it  even  to 
pre-Mosaic  days.  Among  the  contents  of  the 
Pentateuch  special  attention  is  called  to  three 
legal  codes — the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the 
Deuteronomic  Code,  and  the  Priestly  Code — be- 
longing to  different  periods  in  Hebrew  history, 
and  reflecting  different  stages  in  the  religious  and 
social  development  of  the  nation.  The  Deuter- 
onomic Code,  in  some  form,  is  believed  to  have 
been  the  basis  of  the  reforms  instituted  by  Josiah 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  89 

and  to  have  been  written  most  probably  during 
the  early  part  of  the  seventh  century.  On  these 
general  questions  respecting  the  Pentateuch  there 
seems  to  be  general  agreement  among  critical 
scholars;  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  wide  diver- 
gence of  opinion  concerning  points  of  detail,  such 
as  the  chronological  order  in  which  the  several  doc- 
uments reached  their  final  form,  their  exact  dates, 
the  manner  and  time  of  their  compilation,  the 
detailed  distribution  of  the  material  among  the 
several  sources,  etc.  The  differences  of  opinion  on 
these  points  are  due  to  the  fact  that  the  data  upon 
the  basis  of  which  the  problems  must  be  solved 
are  not  sufficiently  numerous  or  decisive. 

6.  Doubt  is  thrown  upon  the  authorship  of  a 
number  of  Old  Testament  books,  or  parts  of 
books,  which  have  been  assigned  to  certain  authors 
by  both  Jewish  and  Christian  tradition.  As 
already  stated,  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  denied;  the  book  of  Lamentation 
is  taken  away  from  Jeremiah;  parts  of  Isaiah 
and  Zechariah  and  the  whole  of  Daniel  are  assigned 
to  persons  other  than  the  prophets  bearing  these 
names.  The  accuracy  of  the  psalm  titles  is 
questioned;  few  of  the  psalms,  if  any,  are  assigned 
to  David  or  his  age;  and  most  of  the  psalms — by 
some  scholars  all — are  placed  in  the  post-exilic 
period.  A  conservative  scholar,  like  W.  T. 
Davison,  is  not  willing  to  say  more  than  "  that 


90  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

from  ton  to  twenty  psalms — including  3,  4,  7, 
8,  15,  18,  23,  24,  32,  and  perhaps  101  and  110— 
may  have  come  down  to  us  from  David's  pen, 
but  that  the  number  can  hardly  be  greater,  and 
may  be  still  less."(^0  The  same  uncertainty  is 
believed  to  exist  respecting  the  authorship  of 
Proverbs  and  of  Ecclesiastes,  which  is  considered 
one  of  the  latest  books  in  the  Old  Testament 
canon.  Other  books,  like  Job,  which  in  the  ab- 
sence of  external  testimony  were  formerly  assigned 
to  an  early  date,  are  now  placed  in  the  later 
period  of  Hebrew  history. 

In  addition  to  these  results  touching  upon 
matters  practically  unrecognized  before,  the  higher 
criticism  has  emphasized  some  truths  which, 
though  loiown,  exerted  little,  if  any,  influence 
upon  the  conception  or  study  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Of  these  perhaps  the  most  important  are,  first, 
that  the  Old  Testament  is  not  so  much  a  single 
book  as  a  library  consisting  of  many  books  of 
difTerent  dates  and  authorship,  though  all  these 
books  may  be  held  together  by  one  common  spirit 
and  purpose  ;(*^)  and,  second,  that  in  these  books 
are  represented  practically  all  the  various  forms  and 
kinds  of  literary  composition  that  can  be  found 
in  the  literatures  of  other  nations. 

These  are  perhaps  the  most  important  con- 
clusions reached  by  the  nontraditional  higher 
critics.    Some  may  not  be  willing  to  admit  that 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  91 

these  conclusions  arc  well  foiinded,  and,  indeed, 
the  cautious  among  the  critics  very  candidly  state 
that  in  most  cases  scientific  demonstration  is  im- 
possible, that  probability  of  varying  degrees  is 
an  important  element  in  the  conclusions;  but 
unless  one  has  followed  those  who  have  reached 
the  conclusions  into  every  detail  of  their  mvesti- 
gation,  he  is  hardly  competent  to  pass  a  valid 
judgment.  And  it  is  well  to  remember  what  seems 
to  be  an  indisputable  fact,  that  with  very  few 
exceptions  Old  Testament  experts  everywhere 
agree  essentially  on  these  results,  and  that  an 
ever-increasing  number  of  serious  Old  Testament 
students  whose  competency  and  sincerity  cannot 
be  doubted  feel  compelled  to  accept  these  con- 
clusions, convinced  that  the  traditional  views  can- 
not be  maintained  without  numerous  modifications. 
This  fact  may  not  establish  the  truth  of  these 
conclusions;  nevertheless,  it  may  serve  as  a  suffi- 
cient reason  for  the  consideration  of  another  ques- 
tion: Should  the  truth  of  the  conclusions  enumer- 
ated be  established  beyond  a  possibility  of  doubt, 
what  would  be  the  effect  upon  the  Christian  con- 
ception of  the  Old  Testament?  What  would  be- 
come of  its  inspiration  or  authority,  of  the  super- 
natural in  its  history,  of  the  work  and  character  of 
Moses,  Isaiah,  or  David;  and,  perhaps  most  impor- 
tant of  all,  what  effect  would  this  have  upon  the 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ  himself? 


93  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

The  1110^  important  and  vital  of  these  ques- 
tions may  be  considered  first.  How  do  the  con- 
clusions of  the  nontraditional  higher  criticism 
affect  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ?  This  ques- 
tion arises  chiefly  in  connection  with  investigations 
into  the  authorship  of  Old  Testament  books, 
especially  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  Psalms,  and 
Isaiah.  It  is  asserted  that  since  Christ  quotes 
and  refers  to  passages  from  the  books  bearing  the 
names  of  Moses,  David,  and  Isaiali,  apparently 
as  if  they  had  been  written  by  these  men,  any 
claim  that  these  passages  were  not  written  by 
the  authors  mentioned  is  an  indication  of  un- 
belief, an  insult  to  Christ,  and  a  denial  of  his 
authority.  "If  Moses  did  not  write  the  Penta- 
teuch," says  L.  W.  Munhall,  ''or  any  portion  of 
it,  and  the  highest  critics  (Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Spirit)  declare  he  did,  it  would  be  a  lie. 
It  would  be  none  the  less  a  lie,  even  though  the 
Jews  held  traditionally  that  Moses  was  the  author 
of  these  books.  The  testimony  of  the  Highest 
Critics  is  absolutely  unerringly  and  eternally  true, 
and  he  who  hesitates  to  receive  it  as  against  all 
other  testimonies  is  dislo3^al  to  the  truth."(*") 
Clearly,  this  statement  is  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  Jesus  gave  deliberate  decisions  on  ques- 
tions of  authorship,  which  assumption  cannot  be 
substantiated.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  well  to  note 
that  in  less  than  one  fifth  of  the  New  Testament 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  93 

quotations  from  tJie  Old  Testament  is. a  persona! 
name  connected  with  the  quotation;  Jesus  himself, 
in  quoting  from  the  Pentateuch  and  other  Old 
Testament  books,  frequently  omits  all  reference 
to  the  alleged  author,  which  shows  that  he  con- 
sidered the  question  of  authorship  of  no  special 
significance  in  comparison  with  the  truth  taught. 
Moreover,  in  some  cascjs  at  least,  the  exact  form 
of  quotation  is  doubtful.  Compare,  for  example, 
Matt.  15.  4,  "God  said,"  with  Mark  7.  10,  "Moses 
said";  and  Luke  20.  37,  "Moses  showed,  in  the 
place  concerning  the  Bush,"  with  Mark  12.  2G, 
"Have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  in  the 
place  concerning  the  Bush  how  God  spake  unto 
him,"  with  Matt.  22.  31,  which,  referring  to  the 
same  statement,  introduces  it  by,  "Have  ye  not 
read  that  which  wns  spoken  unto  you  by  God?" 
Which  one  of  the  evangelists  has  preserved  the 
actual  words  of  Jesus? 

But  even  admitting  that  Jesus  used  in  these 
and  other  passages  a  personal  name,  does  this 
imply  a  decision  respecting  authorship?  In  extra- 
biblical  literature  no  one  would  raise  serious 
objection  to  the  use  of  the  name  of  a  man  to 
designate  a  book  without  implying  that  the  man 
named  was  the  author  of  the  entire  book.  This 
is  done  also  in  the  New  Testament.  In  the 
sermon  of  Peter,  "Samuel"  evidently  is  used  in 
the  sense  of  "book  of  Sanmel,"  for  the  reference 


94  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

is  not  to  an  utterance  of  Samuel  but  of  Nathan,  (2") 
and  it  cannot  imply  authorship,  for  some  of  the 
events  recorded  in  First  Samuel  and  those  in 
Second  Samuel  occurred  after  Samuel's  death. 
In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  (^^)  a  psalm  is 
referred  to  as  "David,"  which  is  not  even  by  the 
title  assigned  to  the  great  khig  of  Israel. (^^)  Might 
it  not  be,  therefore,  that  "Moses"  was  used  as  a 
designation  of  a  book,  without  a  thought  of 
authorship.  This  seems  to  be  the  case  in  2  Cor. 
3.  15:  "Wliensoever  Moses  is  read,  a  veil  lieth 
upon  their  heart.  "(-^)  All  these  facts  suggest 
that  while  Jesus  frequently  quotes  the  Pentateuch, 
and  in  some  cases  connects  the  name  of  Moses 
with  it,  he  never  does  so  to  prove  that  Moses 
wrote  it.  W.  T.  Davison  describes  the  situation 
correctly  when  he  writes,  "A  study  of  the  whole 
use  of  the  Old  Testament  made  by  Christ  in  his 
teaching  shows  that  the  questions  of  date  and 
authorship  witli  which  criticism  is  chiefly  con- 
cerned were  not  before  the  mind  of  our  Lord 
as  he  spoke,  nor  was  it  his  object  to  pronounce 
upon  them."(^^) 

But  even  admitting  that  the  references  of  Jesus 
imply  in  some  cases  a  recognition  of  authorship, 
the  question  still  remains  whether  the  few  passages 
quoted  carry  with  them  the  authorship  of  the 
entire  book  from  which  the  quotations  are  made. 
There  are  even  some  conservative  scholars  who 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  95 

answer  this  question  in  the  negative.  After 
enumerating  some  of  the  passages  referred  to  by 
Jesus  as  coming  from  Moses,  C.  H.  11,  Wright 
continues:  "All,  however,  that  can  be  fairly  de- 
duced from  such  statements  is,  the  Pentateuch 
contains  portions  written  by  Moses.  It  does  not 
follow  that  the  five  books  as  a  whole  were  written 
by  that  lawgiver.  "(^0  Though  this  explanation 
seems  satisfactory  to  some,  others  consider  it 
somewhat  forced  and  unnatural,  and  they  are 
mclined  to  give  different  interpretations  of  the 
words  of  Jesus. 

Many  hold  that  in  his  references  to  Old  Testa- 
ment books  Jesus  accommodated  himself  to  the 
usage  of  the  Jews  without  mdorshig  their  views 
or  giving  expression  to  his  own,  even  though  he 
knew  that  the  commonly  held  opinions  as  to  the 
authorship  of  certam  Old  Testament  books  were 
erroneous.  Those  who  advocate  this  view  believe 
that  their  attitude  in  no  wise  dishonors  the  Master. 
Indeed,  they  say,  one  cannot  easily  see  what 
other  course  he  could  have  taken.  Jesus  had 
come  to  reveal  the  Father,  to  bring  a  fallen  race 
into  harmony  with  a  holy  God.  Surely,  the  task 
was  great,  and  there  was  but  little  time  in  which 
to  accomplish  it.  If  he  had  turned  aside  from 
his  chief  purpose  to  settle  scientific  and  literary 
questions  which  were  not  under  discussion  among 
the  people,  he  would  have  aroused  popular  opposi- 


96  THK  CHRTSTTAX  VIEW  OF 

tion  and  thus  li;iv(^  hiiidcTcd  liis  chief  work.  In 
no  case  do  his  n>lVn>ncos  imply  that  lie  desired 
to  pronounce  an  authoritative  critical  judgment, 
and  in  no  case  does  the  value  of  the  quotation 
depend  upon  its  authorship.  Looking  at  the 
matter,  therefore,  from  a  pedagogical  standpoint, 
it  would  seem  tliat,  in  view  of  his  important 
mission  in  the  world,  he  was  compelled  to  accom- 
modate himself  to  the  views  of  the  people  in  all 
matters  not  essential  to  his  work. 

This  view  seems  entirelj^  satisfactory  to  many 
sincere  Christian  believers.  There  are,  however, 
those  who  maintain  that  it  would  not  have  been 
legitimate  for  Jesus  thus  to  accommodate  himself 
to  the  usage  of  the  people  if  he  had  known  that 
tluMr  views  were  not  in  accord  with  the  facts; 
nevertheless,  they  insist  that  his  utterances  do 
not  settle  purely  literary  questions.  They  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  shared  the  views  of  the  people, 
that  he  actually  thouglit  that  Moses  wrote  the 
entire  Pentateuch,  and  Isaiah,  the  whole  of  the 
book  bearing  his  name ;  but  that  this  was  a  limita- 
tion of  knowledge  on  his  part.  And  they  further 
insist  that  this  attitude  toward  Jesus  in  no  wise 
affects  the  supreme  and  final  authority  of  the 
Christ  over  the  lives  of  men.  The  entire  life  of 
the  Master,  they  say,  shows  that  he  regarded 
his  mission  as  spiritual;  he  did  not  come  to  correct 
all  errors,  but  merely  those  touching  religion  and 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  97 

ethics;  and  even  here  he  did  not  give  detailed 
specific  rules.  In  many  cases  he  simply  laid  down 
great  principles,  which  in  time  might  be 
worked  out  and  applied  to  the  details  of  human 
activity.  He  did  not  abolish  slavery,  he  made 
no  efforts  to  correct  errors  hi  science;  why  shoukl 
he  correct  erroneous  views  respecting  literary 
and  critical  questions?  These  were  outside  of  his 
immediate  sphere  of  interest.  His  knowledge  or 
ignorance  in  these  secondary  matters  does  not 
necessarily  involve  his  knowledge  or  authority  in 
essentials.  (^^)  Again,  while  Christ  was  God,  he 
was  also  truly  man.  This  union  of  the  divine 
with  the  human,  if  real,  must  have  brought  some 
limitations.  And  the  New  Testament  clearly 
teaches  that  in  some  respects  the  powers  of  Christ 
were  limited.  His  omnipotence  was  limited,  else 
he  could  not  have  felt  hunger,  weariness,  pain,  etc. 
As  strength  was  needed,  it  was  supplied.  It  may 
have  been  there  potentially,  but  not  actually. 
Might  it  not  have  been  the  same  with  omniscience? 
In  one  case,  at  least,  Jesus  admits  that  his  knowl- 
edge was  limiled:  "But  of  that  day  or  hour  know- 
eth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither 
the  Son,  but  the  Father. "(")  And,  surely,  that 
which,  according  to  this  admission,  was  hidden 
from  Jesus  was,  as  compared  with  a  question  of 
the  authorship  of  a  biblical  book,  of  infinitely 
greater    importance.     It    would   seem,    therefore. 


98  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

that  B,  P.  Raymond  is  right  when  he  says:  "To 
affirm  that  he  had  Imowledge  of  the  critical 
questions  which  agitate  Christian  scholars  to-day 
is  to  deny  that  he  was  made  like  mito  his  brethren. 
It  is  to  compromise  the  reality  of  his  humanity 
and  to  start  on  the  road  that  leads  to  doeetisra. 
Fair  bairn's  conclusions  are  just;  'The  humanity 
of  the  Saviour  must  be  absolutely  real.'  "(^*) 

There  are,  then,  three  explanations  of  the 
references  of  Christ  to  the  authorship  of  Old 
Testament  books,  each  one  of  which  seems  per- 
fectly fair,  natural,  and,  above  all,  scriptural;  and 
each  one  shows  that  his  utterances  do  not  finally 
settle  purely  literary  questions.  This  conclusion, 
since  it  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment, can  in  no  wise  be  construed  as  an  insult 
to  the  Christ,  nor  does  it  affect  in  the  least  the 
authority  of  Jesus  in  matters  religious  and  ethical. 
Whsit  is  said  here  of  the  words  of  Jesus  is  equally 
true,  with  some  slight  modifications,  of  similar 
New  Testament  references  coming,  not  from  Jesus 
directly,  but  from  the  authors  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment books. 

From  the  consideration  of  this  question  of  vital 
interest  we  may  turn  to  another,  also  of  great 
importance,  namely,  what  is  the  effect  of  critical 
conclusions  upon  the  belief  in  the  inspiration  of 
the  Old  Testament,  in  the  supernatural  in  its 
history,  and  m  its  authority?     All  these  questions 


\ 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  99 

center  in  one,  for  inspiration  implies  the  presence 
of  a  supernatural  element,  and  the  authority  of 
the  Old  Testament  depends  upon  the  reality  of 
its  inspiration.  Hence  the  real  question  is.  Have 
the  conclusions  of  the  higher  criticism  disproved, 
or  in  any  serious  way  affected,  the  reality  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  writers?  This 
inquiry  must  be  answered  with  an  emphatic 
"No."  Inspiration  does  not  depend  upon  the 
fact  that  a  certain  definite  individual  is  respon- 
sible for  a  writmg.  A  book  is  inspired  because 
God  is  back  of  it  and  in  it,  and  not  because  a 
certain  man  wrote  it.  Nor  does  belief  in  inspira- 
tion depend  upon  the  knowledge  of  the  human 
author,  else  how  could  Christians  believe  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  men  who  wrote  boolcs  like  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  book  of  Job,  the 
books  of  Samuel,  and  other  biblical  books  whose 
authors  are  not  named?  Moreover,  an  inspired 
book  does  not  lose  its  inspiration  because  it  is 
discovered  that  the  human  agent  inspired  is  one 
different  from  the  man  to  whom  tradition  has 
been  accustomed  to  assign  the  book.  Would  the 
laws  of  the  Pentateuch  be  any  less  divine  if  it 
should  be  proved  that  they  were  the  product  of 
the  experience  of  the  chosen  people  from  the 
time  of  Moses  to  the  exile?  Would  the  Psalms 
cease  to  lift  us  into  the  presence  of  God,  if  it 
should  be  demonstrated  that  most  of  them  came 


100  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

from  a  period  later  than  David?  Is  the  book  of 
Job  less  majestic  and  sublime  because  we  know 
not  the  time  or  place  of  its  birth?  Are  the  Proverbs 
less  instructive  because  criticism  claims  that  they 
do  not  all  come  from  the  son  of  David  ?(^^) 

Once  more:  inspiration  is  not  confined  to  any 
form  of  literature;  a  parable  may  be  as  truly 
inspired  as  history;  and  the  inspiration  of  a  book 
does  not  vanish  when  it  is  assigned  to  one  form 
of  literature  rather  than  to  another.  The  con- 
clusions of  the  legitimate  higher  criticism  in  no 
wise  tend  toward  a  denial  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Inspiration,  the  special  divine 
providence  over  Israel,  God's  interference  in  the 
history  of  the  chosen  people,  would  stand  out  as 
prominently  as  ever  if  every  claim  of  the  higher 
criticism  should  be  proved  true.  Most  critical 
scholars  are  ready  to  indorse  the  words  of  Pro- 
fessor Sanday:  "My  experience  is  that  criticism 
leads  straight  up  to  the  supernatural,  and  not 
away  from  it.'X^")  But  if  this  be  true,  how  can 
any  authority  which  rightly  belongs  to  the  Old 
Testament  be  affected  by  criticism?  This  author- 
ity belongs  to  it  by  virtue  of  its  inspiration,  and 
the  voice  of  God  is  not  silenced  by  the  conclusions 
of  modem  criticism. 

"But,"  some  one  will  say,  "if  this  is  true  how 
is  it  that  criticism  has  been  and  still  is  con- 
demned unsparingly  by  many  men  whose  sincerity 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  101 

and  love  for  the  truth  cannot  be  called  into  ques- 
tion?" There  are  several  reasons  for  this.  In 
the  first  place  even  some  very  intelhgcnt  men 
seem  to  misunderstand  both  the  purpose  and  the 
claims  of  the  higher  criticism.  Another  reason  is 
that  there  are  even  among  the  evangelical  critics 
those  who  lack  judgment,  and  who  permit  them- 
selves to  draw  inferences  unwarranted  by  the 
facts  in  the  case.  As  a  consequence,  ill-informed 
persons  have  concluded  that  all  the  results  of 
criticism  are  unwarranted  by  the  facts.  A  third 
reason  is  that  some  critics  are  arrogant  and 
obnoxious  in  the  presentation  of  their  views,  and, 
therefore,  bring  the  entire  process  into  disrepute. 
A  fourth,  and  perhaps  the  most  important,  reason 
is  that  in  addition  to  the  legitimate  higher  crit- 
icism discussed  in  the  preceding  pages  there  is 
an  illegitimate  criticism  which  very  frequently, 
though  erroneously,  is  thought  to  be  the  only 
kind  of  criticism  practiced.  This  criticism  also 
studies  the  facts,  but — and  this  is  its  distinguishing 
feature — its  investigations  are  colored  by  certain 
presuppositions,  such  as  the  belief  in  a  material- 
istic or  deistic  evolution,  in  the  presence  of  which 
there  is  no  room  for  inspiration,  or  for  the  super- 
natural, or  for  miracles,  in  the  Christian  sense  of 
these  terms.  This  kind  of  criticism  is  not  legit- 
imate, because  it  is  not  scientific,  proceeding  as 
it  does  on  the  basis  of  an  unestablished,  unchris- 


102  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

tiaii,  and  impossible  view  of  the  universe.  But 
higher  critics  belonging  to  this  class  are  few  in 
number,  and  fairness  and  Christian  courtesy 
demand  that  in  any  discussion  of  the  subject 
clear  distinctions  should  be  made  between  this 
criticism  and  that  process  of  investigation  which 
is  not  only  legitimate,  but  indispensable.  It  is 
also  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  conclusions  of 
the  illegitimate  criticism  will  never  be  disproved  by 
denunciation,  but,  rather,  by  the  careful  and  pains- 
taking labors  of  those  critics  who  approach  their 
studies  without  these  unwarranted  assumptions. 

One  more  question  remains  to  be  considered, 
namely,  What  becomes  of  the  men  from  whom 
criticism  takes  away  at  least  part  of  the  writings 
traditionally  comiected  with  their  names?  Pre- 
eminent among  these  are  Moses,  Isaiah,  and 
David.  Moses  is  not,  as  is  sometimes  erroneously 
asserted,  removed  to  the  realm  of  myths.  (^*) 
To  prove  this  assertion  it  is  only  necessary  to 
quote  the  words  of  one  who  accepts  the  results 
of  the  higher  criticism  as  set  forth  above:  "Moses 
was  the  man  who  under  divme  direction  'hewed 
Israel  from  the  rock.'  Subsequent  prophets  and 
circumstances  chiseled  the  rough  bowlder  into 
sjnnmetrical  form,  but  the  glory  of  the  creative 
act  is  rightly  attributed  to  the  first  great  Hebrew 
prophet.  As  a  leader  he  not  only  created  a 
nation   but   guided   them   through    infinite   vicis- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  103 

situdes  to  a  land  where  they  might  have  a  settled 
abode  and  develop  into  a  stable  power;  in  so  doing 
he  left  upon  his  race  the  imprmt  of  his  o\vn  mighty 
personality.  As  a  judge  he  set  in  motion  forces 
which  ultimately  led  to  the  mcorporation  of  the 
principles  of  right  in  objective  laws.  As  a  priest 
he  first  gave  definite  form  to  the  worship  of 
Jehovah.  As  a  prophet  he  gathered  together  all 
that  was  best  in  the  faith  of  his  age  and  race, 
and,  fusing  them,  gave  to  his  people  a  livmg 
religion.  Under  his  enlightened  guidance  Israel 
became  truly  and  forever  the  people  of  Jehovah. 
Through  him  the  Divine  revealed  himself  to 
Israel  as  their  Deliverer,  Leader,  and  Coimselor — 
not  afar  off,  but  present;  a  God  powerful  and 
willing  to  succor  his  people,  and,  therefore,  one 
to  be  trusted  and  loved  as  well  as  feared.  As 
the  acorn  contains  the  sturdy  oak  m  embryo, 
so  the  revelation  through  Moses  was  the  germ 
which   developed   into   the  message   of  Israel  to 

humanity.  "(^') 

Isaiah,  though  losing  some  of  the  sublimest 
passages  in  the  book,  is  still  the  kmg  among  the 
prophets.  In  the  words  of  Ewald,  a  pronoimced 
advocate  of  the  conclusions  of  modern  criticism: 
"Of  the  other  prophets  all  the  more  celebrated 
ones  were  distinguished  by  some  special  excellence 
and  peculiar  power,  whether  of  speech  or  of 
deed;  in  Isaiah  all  the  powers  and  all  the  beauties 


104  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OP 

of  prophetic  speech  and  deed  combine  to  form 
a  symmetrical  whole;  he  is  distinguished  less  by 
any  special  excellence  than  by  the  symmetTy 
and  perfection  of  all  his  parts.  There  are 
rarely  combined  in  one  individual  the  profoundest 
prophetic  emotion  and  purest  feeling,  the  most 
unwearied,  successful,  and  consistent  activity 
amid  all  the  confusions  and  changes  of  life;  and, 
lastly,  true  poetic  genius  and  beauty  of  style, 
combined  with  force  and  irresistible  power;  yet 
this  triad  of  powers  we  find  realized  in  Isaiah 
as  in  no  other  prophet.  "(^^) 

David,  indeed,  loses  some  of  his  halo,  if  many 
of  the  most  beautiful  psalms  are  taken  from  him, 
3'et  he  remains  the  man  after  God's  own  heart. 
"According  to  his  light,  he  served  the  Jehovah 
whom  he  knew  with  marvelous  fidelity  and 
constancy.  ...  He  ruled  over  the  united  Hebrew 
tribes  as  Jehovah's  representative.  In  his  name 
he  fought  the  battles  against  Israel's  foes,  whom 
he  regarded  as  Jehovah's  also.  .  .  .  From  the 
spoils  which  he  won  in  his  wars  he  provided  the 
means  wherewith  to  build  a  fitting  dwelling  place 
for  the  God  of  his  nation.  The  priests  found  in 
him  a  generous  patron,  and  prophets  like  Nathan 
were  among  his  most  trusted  counselors.  To  do 
the  will  of  Jehovah  as  it  was  revealed  to  him  was 
the  dominating  principle  of  his  life.  More  cannot 
be  said  of  anyone. "(''0 


THE  OLD  TP]STAMENT  105 

A  splendid  summary  of  the  bearing  of  modern 
evangelical  criticism  upon  the  Christian  view  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  given  by  Canon  Driver: 
"It  is  not  the  case  that  critical  conclusions  are 
in  conflict  either  with  the  Christian  creeds  or 
with  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith.  Those 
conclusions  affect  not  the  fact  of  revelation  but 
only  its  form.  They  help  to  determine  the  stages 
through  which  it  passed,  the  different  phases 
which  it  assumed,  and  the  process  by  which  the 
record  of  it  was  built  up.  They  do  not  touch 
either  the  authority  or  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  imply 
no  change  in  respect  to  the  divine  attributes 
revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  no  change  in  the 
lessons  of  human  duty  to  be  derived  from  it, 
no  change  as  to  the  general  position  (apart  from 
the  interpretation  of  particular  passages)  that 
the  Old  Testament  points  forward  prophetically 
to  Christ.  That  both  the  religion  of  Israel  itself 
and  the  record  of  its  history  embodied  in  the 
Old  Testament  are  the  work  of  men  whose  hearts 
have  been  touched  and  minds  illuminated,  in 
different  degrees,  by  the  Spu-it  of  God  is  man- 
ifest."C') 

But  not  only  has  criticism  not  taken  away 
anything  essential  from  the  Bible;  on  the 
contrary,  it  has  resulted  in  some  distinct  gains. 
The  textual  criticism  has  furnished  the  modem 


106  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

student  with  a  much  more  accurate  text  of  the 
biblical  books,  while  the  linguistic  criticism  has 
established  the  interpretation  of  this  text  upon 
a  firmer  basis.  The  higher  criticism  also  has 
made  invaluable  contributions  toward  a  more 
adequate  imderstanding  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  It  has  made  impossible  the  arbitrary 
and,  sometimes,  unreasonable  interpretations  of 
scripture  which  in  former  ages  have  proved  a 
serious  detriment  to  religion  and  theology.  It 
has  restored  to  religious  use  some  of  the  biblical 
books  almost  forgotten  before,  and  endowed 
them  with  flesh  and  blood  by  throwing  bright 
light  upon  the  circumstances  connected  with  their 
origin.  It  has  made  it  possible  to  secure  a  "reason- 
able, probable,  and  even  thrilling"  view  of  the 
history  and  religion  of  Israel  and  of  the  steps 
by  which  the  records  of  these  grew  up.  Many 
of  the  moral,  religious,  and  historical  difficulties 
which  served  as  effective  weapons  to  skeptics  in 
all  ages  have  disappeared,  and  the  weapons  have 
been  snatched  from  the  enemies  of  the  Bible. 
Many  of  the  confusions  and  apparent  discrep- 
ancies, which  according  to  former  theories  pre- 
sented insurmountable  difficulties,  have  found  a 
satisfactory  explanation.  "Higher  criticism,"  says 
R.  F.  Horton,  "so  much  dreaded  by  pious  souls,  is 
furnishing  a  conclusive  answer  to  the  untiring 
opponents    of    revelation. "(^'')     Everyone    knows 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  107 

that  the  Bible  has  been  bitterly  attacked  in  the 
past,  and  that  such  attacks  have  not  altogether 
ceased  even  now;  but  it  is  sometimes  overlooked 
that  in  the  majority  of  cases  these  attacks  are 
made  by  men  who  are,  or  seem  to  be,  lamentably 
ignorant  of  the  attitude  and  results  of  modern 
critical  study.  Their  arguments  become  "ab- 
solutely powerless  against  the  modern  historical 
interpretation  of  the  Bible;  and  the  more  that 
interpretation  underlies  the  teaching  of  the  young, 
the  more  certain  are  those  attacks  to  die  a  natural 

death."n 

There  are,  indeed,  few  Old  Testament  scholars 
who  would  not  indorse  the  testimony  of  Professor 
A.  S.  Peake,  given  in  a  paper  on  "Permanent 
Results  of  Biblical  Criticism,"  read  before  the 
Fourth  Methodist  Ecumenical  Conference:  "Speak- 
ing for  myself,  I  may  truthfully  say  that  my 
sense  of  the  value  of  Scripture,  my  interest  in 
it,  my  attachment  to  it,  have  been  ahnost  in- 
definitely enhanced  by  the  new  attitude  and  new 
mode  of  study  which  criticism  has  brought  to  us." 

NOTES  ON  CHAPTER  III 

0)  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church, 
p.  1. 

O  The  Integrity  of  Scripture,  p.  1. 

f )  The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, p.  85. 

{*)  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church, 
p.  47. 


108  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

(*)  General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament:  The 
Text,  pp.  162,  163. 

(')  J.  G.  Eichhorn,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament, 
Preface  to  Second  Edition. 

C)  The  Elements  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  pp.  12,  13. 

C)  Christ  and  Criticism,  Preface. 

C)  J.  P.  Peters,  The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Scholar- 
ship, p.  87. 

C^)  L.  W.  Munhall,  Anti-Higher  Criticism,  p.  9.  For  a 
discriminating  study  of  the  theological  and  philo- 
sophical bias  of  the  more  representative  Old  Testa- 
ment critics,  see  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  January,  1912, 
pp.  Iff. 

(")  The  Bible  and  Modem  Criticism,  p.  19. 

(")  The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  7,  8. 

('')  Some  of  these  concessions  are  enumerated  in  J.  E. 
McFadyen,  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the 
Christian  Church,  pp.  15ff.  The  Problem  of  the 
Old  Testament,  by  James  Orr,  is  often  quoted 
as  overthrowing  entirely  the  positions  of  modern 
criticism  regarding  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. If,  however,  one  reads  Orr's  summary  of 
the  chief  results  of  his  own  critical  investigation 
(pp.  371ff.),  the  question  may  well  be  asked.  Why 
should  he  be  considered  less  of  a  higher  critic  than, 
for  example,  Wellhausen? 

('*)  The  Origin  and  Permanent  Value  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, p.  30. 

(")  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church, 
p.  143. 

("•)  Even  those  who  question  the  existence  of  four  inde- 
pendent documents  assume  the  activity  of  at  least 
four  different  hands. 

(")  James  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Vol.  IV, 
p.  151. 

(")  See  above,  pp.  30ff. 

('»)  The  Highest  Critics  vs.  The  Higher  Critics,  pp.  7,  8. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  109 

(*")  Acts  3.  24.  The  passage  in  the  mind  of  the  apostle 
seems  to  be  2  Sam.  7.  11-16. 

C>)  Heb.  4.  7. 

O  Psa.  95. 

(^)  The  origin  of  the  designations  Moses  =  Pentateuch, 
Samuel  =  books  of  Samuel,  David  =  book  of  Psalms, 
must  be  explained,  and  can  be  explained;  but  as 
the  mention  of  Samuel  and  David  ishows,  it  cannot 
always  rest  upon  the  fact  of  authorship,  whatever 
the  popular  idea  may  have  been. 

C*)  James  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Vol.  IV 
p.  151. 

(")  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  76. 

(^)  See  above,  p.  55. 

(")  Mark  13.  32. 

C^)  M.  S.  Terry,  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  p.  194. 

(^•)  C.  A.  Briggs,  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
Holy  Scripture,  p.  26. 

('»)  Quoted  in  J.  E.  McFadyen,  Old  Testament  Criticism 
and  the  Christian  Church,  p.  253. 

('')  Moses  has,  indeed,  been  removed  by  some  investi- 
gators to  the  realm  of  myth,  but  not  upon  the  basis 
of  conclusions  reached  by  the  legitimate  modern 
criticism. 

C^)  C.  F.  Kent,  A  History  of  the  Hebrew  People,  Vol.  I, 
pp.  44,  45. 

{^)  Prophets,  English  translation.  Vol.  II,  p.  1. 

C')  C.  F.  Kent,  A  History  of  the  Hebrew  People,  Vol.  I, 
p.  167. 

(")  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament, 
pp.  viii,  ix. 

C)  Revelation  and  the  Bible,  p.  61. 

C)  J.  E.  McFadyen,  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the 
Christian  Church,  p.  136. 


110  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Old  Testament  and  Archeology 

A  CENTURY  ago  the  student  of  the  world's 
history  found  it  exceedingly  difficult,  if  not  im- 
possible, to  paint  for  himself  a  clear  picture  of 
events  antedating  B.  C.  400.  Concerning  earlier 
periods,  he  was,  aside  from  the  Old  Testament, 
practically  without  records  that  could  claim 
contemporaneousness  with  the  events  recorded. 
But,  one  hundred  years  ago,  men  had  connnenced 
to  test  every  statement,  be  it  historical,  or  scientific, 
or  theological,  by  severe  canons  of  criticism, 
and  if  it  could  not  stand  the  test,  it  was  speedily 
rejected.  One  result  of  this  tendency  was  to 
reject  historical  statements  of  the  Bible  when 
they  could  not  be  corroborated  by  reliable  extra- 
biblical  records.  The  nineteenth  century  has 
wrought  a  marvelous  change.  The  Old  Testament 
is  no  longer  the  **lone  Old  Testament,"  at  the 
mercy  of  the  scientific  investigator.  The  historian 
and  the  Bible  student  now  have  at  their  com- 
mand literary  treasures  almost  without  number, 
partly  contemporaneous  with  the  Old  Testament, 
partly  older  by  many  centuries.  These  rich 
treasures  have  been  brought  to  light  by  the  per- 


THE  OLD  TESTAME>s^T  111 

severance  and  painstaking  toil  of  archaeologists, 
whose  discoveries  have  shed  liglit  on  human 
history  during  a  period  of  more  than  four  thousand 
years  before  the  opening  of  the  Christian  era. 

The  historical  movements  recorded  in  the  Old 
Testament,  in  which  the  Hebrews  had  a  vital 
interest,  were  confined  chiefly  to  the  territory 
between  the  four  seas  of  western  Asia:  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea,  the  Black  Sea,  the  Caspian  Sea,  and 
the  Persian  Gulf,  In  the  East  the  territory  might 
be  extended  to  include  Persia;  in  the  West,  to 
include  Asia  Minor;  and  in  the  South  or  South- 
west, to  include  Egypt,  in  North  Africa.  All 
these  districts,  which  may  be  designated  Bible 
lands,  have  been  more  or  less  thoroughly  ex- 
plored, and  in  most  of  them  excavations  have 
been  carried  on.  The  countries  in  which  the 
most  valuable  finds,  so  far  as  Bible  study  is  con- 
cerned, have  been  made  are  Palestine,  Babylonia- 
Assyria,  Egypt,  Northern  Syria,  Phoenicia,  Moab, 
and  Asia  Minor. 

Even  before  excavations  were  undertaken  trav- 
elers had  visited  these  different  comitries  and 
had  reported  their  observations,  but  the  informa- 
tion thus  gauied  was  more  or  less  vague,  and  in 
many  cases  of  no  practical  scientific  value. (*) 
They  saw  many  strange  moimds  and  ruins,  and 
noticed  and  occasionally  picked  up  fragments  of 
inscriptions  and  monuments;  but  no  one  could  de- 


112  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

ciplier  the  inscriptions;  hence  the  finds  were 
preserved  sini|)ly  as  nunnentoes  and  n^lics  of  an 
unknown  age,  from  which  nothing  could  be  learned 
concernmg  the  history  and  civiHzation  of  the 
people  that  once  occupied  these  lands.  The  mounds 
and  heaps  of  ruins  which  contained  the  real 
treasures  were  left  undisturbed  until  the  nine- 
teenth century. 

The  pioneer  in  the  work  of  excavation  in  the 
territory  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  was  Claudius 
James  Rich,  who,  while  resident  of  the  British 
East  India  Company  in  Bagdad,  in  1811,  visited 
and  studied  the  ruins  of  Babylon,  and  a  little 
later  made  similar  investigations  in  the  mounds 
marking  the  site  of  the  ancient  city  of  Nineveh. 
In  the  gullies  cut  by  centuries  of  rain  he  gathered 
numerous  little  clay  tablets,  covered  on  every  side 
with  the  same  wedge-shaped  characters  as  those 
seen  on  the  fragments  found  by  earlier  travelers. 
These  he  saved  carefully,  and  in  time  presented 
them  to  the  British  Museum. 

No  systematic  excavations  were  carried  on  until 
1842,  when  P.  C.  Botta  was  sent  by  the  French 
government  as  vice-consul  to  Mosul  on  the  upper 
Tigris.  He  noticed  across  the  riv(>r  from  Mosul 
extensive  artificial  mounds  which  were  supposed 
to  mark  the  site  of  the  city  of  Nineveh.  These 
so  aroused  his  curiosity  that  he  began  digging  in 
the  two  most  prominent  momids.     Failing  to  make 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  lin 

any  discoveries,  he  transferred,  the  following  year, 
at  the  suggestion  of  a  peasant,  his  activities  to 
Korsabad,  a  few  miles  to  the  northeast,  where  the 
digging  produced,  almost  immediately,  startling 
results.  In  the  course  of  his  excavations  he  laid 
bare  a  complex  of  buildings  which  proved  to  be 
the  palace  of  Sargon,  king  of  Assyria  from  B.  C. 
722  to  B.  C.  705,  a  palace  covering  an  area  of 
about  twenty-five  acres.  The  walls  of  the  various 
buildings  were  all  wainscotted  with  alabaster 
slabs,  upon  which  were  representations  of  bat- 
tles, sieges,  triumphal  processions,  and  similar 
events  in  the  life  of  ancient  Assyria.  He  also 
found,  in  the  course  of  the  excavations,  scores  of 
strange  figures  and  colossi,  and  numerous  other 
remains  of  a  long  lost  civilization.  Botta's  dis- 
coveries filled  the  whole  archaiological  world  with 
enthusiasm. 

Even  before  Botta  reached  Mosul,  a  young 
Englishman,  Austin  Henry  Layard,  visited  the 
territory  of  ancient  Assyria,  and  was  so  impressed 
by  its  momids  and  ruins  that  he  resolved  to 
examine  them  thoroughly  whenever  it  might  be 
in  his  power  to  do  so.  This  resolution  was  taken 
in  April,  1840,  but  more  than  five  years  elapsed 
before  he  began  operations.  It  would  be  interest- 
ing to  follow  Layard 's  work  as  described  by  him 
in  a  most  fascinating  manner  in  Nineveh  and 
Its  Remains,  and  other  writings,  which  give  com- 


Ill  THE  CHEISTIAX  VIEW  OF 

plete  records  of  the  wonderful  successes  he  achieved 
where\'cr  lie  went. 

Never  again  did  the  labors  entirely  cease,  though 
there  were  periods  of  decline,  Layard's  operations 
were  conthnied  under  the  direction  of  Rassam, 
Taylor,  Loftus,  and  Henry  C.  Rawlinson;  the 
French  operations  were  in  charge  of  such  men 
as  Place,  Thomas,  Fresnell,  and  Oppert.  How- 
ever, it  was  not  until  1873  that  other  startling 
discoveries  were  made,  chiefly  under  the  direction 
of  George  Smitli,  who  was  sent  by  the  Daily 
Telegraph,  of  London,  to  visit  the  site  of  Nineveh 
for  the  purpose  of  finding,  if  possible,  fragments 
of  the  Babylonian  account  of  the  Deluge,  parts  of 
which  he  had  previously  discovered  on  tablets 
that  had  been  shipped  to  the  British  Museum.  In 
1S77  France  sent  Ernest  de  Sarzec  as  consul  to 
Bosra  in  Lower  Babylonia.  His  interest  in 
archaeology  led  him  to  investigate  some  of  the 
mounds  in  the  neighborhood,  and  he  soon  began 
work  at  one  called  Telloh.  In  the  course  of 
several  campaigns,  which  continued  until  1894, 
he  unearthed  a  great  variety  of  material  illus- 
trative of  primitive  ages,  among  his  treasures  be- 
ing palaces,  statues,  vases,  thousands  of  tablets, 
and  various  other  articles  of  interest. 

The  first  steps  toward  sending  out  an  American 
expedition  for  excavation  were  taken  at  a  meeting 
of  the  American  Oriental  Society  in  the  spring  of 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  115 

1884.  In  the  fall  of  tlio  same  year  a  preliminary 
expedition  of  exploration  was  sent  out,  wliich 
completed  its  labors  during  the  winter  and  spring, 
returning  in  June,  1885.  But  the  means  for 
excavation  were  not  forthcoming  until  1888,  when 
a  well-equipped  expedition  was  sent  out  under  the 
auspices  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Four 
successive  campaigns  were  carried  on  upon  the 
great  mounds  of  Nuffar,  the  site  of  Nippur,  a 
center  of  early  Babylonian  life.  Each  expedition 
brought  to  light  architectural  and  artistic  remain.-; 
and  many  thousands  of  tablets,  throwing  light 
upon  all  sitles  of  the  ancient  life  and  civilization, 
over  which  hitherto  there  had  lain  almost  com- 
plete darkness.  In  1899  Germany  sent  its  first 
expedition  to  Babylon  and,  during  successive 
seasons,  extensive  excavations  have  been  carried 
on,  which  have  resulted  m  the  discovery  of  many 
interesting  finds.  At  a  later  date  excavations 
were  begun  and,  like  those  of  Babylon,  are  still 
continued,  on  the  mound  covering  the  site  of  the 
ancient  capital  city  of  Assyria,  Asshur,  where 
inscriptions  of  great  value  have  been  uncovered. 
At  the  present  time  the  Germans  are  perhaps  the 
most  active  excavators  m  Assyria-Babylonia,  and 
by  their  painstaking  care  to  record  every  new 
discovery  they  are  boimd  to  increase  the  knowledge 
of  the  early  history  and  civilization  of  these 
ancient  empires.  (") 


no  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Reference  may  be  made  also  to  the  later  ex- 
cavations of  the  French  at  Susa,  the  scone  of  the 
book  t)f  Estlier,  whore  thoy  h;vve  uncovcrocl  much 
valuable  material.  The  most  important  find,  made 
in  the  ^\^nter  of  1901-1902,  is  the  monument  upon 
which  is  inscribed  the  legal  code  of  Hammurabi, 
king  of  Babylon,  generally  idontifiod  with  the 
Amraphel  of  Gen.  14.  1.  For  a  short  time  the 
University  of  Chicago  carried  on  excavations  at 
Bismiyah,  in  southern  Babylonia,  which  have 
brought  to  light  many  objects  of  interest,  if  not 
of  great  historical  importance.  The  Turkish 
government,  under  whose  rule  the  territory  of 
Babylonia  and  Assj^-ia  now  is,  stimulated  by  the 
example  of  other  nations,  is  taking  an  active 
interest  in  these  excavations,  granting  the  privilege 
of  excavating  to  an  ever-increasing  number  of 
scholars,  and  giving  them  protection  while  engaged 
in  their  work.  The  Sultan  has  erected  in  Con- 
stantinople a  magnificent  museum,  where  the 
valuable  antiquities  are  accessible  to  the  scholar- 
ship of  the  world. 

The  credit  of  having  first  turned  the  attention 
of  the  West  toward  the  monuments  of  Egypt,  and 
of  having  brought  them  within  the  reach  of  science, 
belongs  to  the  military  expedition  of  Napoleon 
Bonaparte,  undertaken  in  the  summer  of  1798. (^) 
In  August,  1799,  a  French  artillery  officer,  Bous- 
sard,   unearthed  at   the   Fort  Saint  Julien,  near 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  117 

Rosetta,  in  the  Nile  Delta,  a  stone  of  black  granite, 
three  feet  five  inches  in  height,  two  feet  four  and 
one  half  inches  in  width,  and  eleven  inches  in 
thickness.  It  is  tliouglit  to  have  been  at  least 
twelve  inches  higher  and  to  have  had  a  rounded 
top.  On  the  upper  portion  of  this  block  could 
be  seen  parts  of  fourteen  lines  of  characters, 
resembling  those  seen  everywhere  on  the  obelisks 
and  ruined  temples  of  the  land;  adjoining  these 
below  are  thirty-two  lines  of  another  specic^s  of 
script,  while  at  the  bottom  arc  fifty-four  lines, 
twenty-eight  of  them  complete,  in  Greek  uncial  let- 
ters. The  Greek  was  easily  read,  and  told  the  story 
of  the  stone:  It  was  set  up  in  B.  C.  195,  by  the 
priests  of  Egypt,  in  honor  of  Ptolemy  Epiphanes, 
because  he  had  canceled  arrearages  of  certain 
taxes  due  from  the  sacerdotal  body.  The  grateful 
priests  ordered  the  memorial  decree  to  be  inscribed 
in  the  sacred  characters  of  Egypt,  in  the  vernacular, 
and  in  Greek.  The  Greek  portion  having  been 
read,  it  was  conjectured  that  the  two  inscriptions 
above  the  Greek  told  the  same  story.  Sucli  being 
the  case,  the  value  of  the  documoiit  for  the  de- 
cipherment of  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  was  at 
once  perceived,  and  scholars  immediately  set  to 
work  on  the  task  of  deciphering  the  unknown 
script.  The  honor  of  having  solved  the  mystery 
belongs  to  Frangois  Champollion,  who  by  1S22 
had  succeeded  in  fixing  the  value  of  a  considerable 


lis  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

portion  of  the  ancient  Egyptian  signs,  and  at 
the  time  of  his  death,  ten  3^ears  later,  left  behmd 
in  manuscript  a  complete  Egyptian  grammar  and 
vocabulary. 

Through  the  discovery  of  Champollion  the 
interest  in  ancient  Egypt  grew  in  all  learned 
circles,  and  from  his  day  until  now  efforts  at 
bringing  to  light  tiie  remains  of  the  Egyptian 
civilization  have  never  ceased.  The  French  have 
been  especially  active;  but  other  nations  also  have 
been  in  the  field  and  have  greatly  added  to  our 
knowledge  of  ancient  Egypt.  Since  1883  the 
Egyptian  Exploration  Fund  has  been  at  work  in 
various  parts  of  the  Nile  valley;  private  subscrip- 
tions have  enabled  the  investigation  of  certain 
places  of  special  mterest;  and  now  every  3^ear 
new  finds  are  made,  which  constantly  enrich  our 
knowledge  of  the  history,  art,  and  civilization  of 
the  land  of  the  Pharaohs. 

''Palestine,"  says  Dr.  Benzinger,  "became  the 
object  of  most  general  interest  earlier  than  any 
other  Oriental  country.  .  .  .  Nevertheless,  Palestine 
research  is  but  a  child  of  the  century  just  closed, 
the  systematic  exploration  of  the  land,  in  all  its 
aspects,  beginning  properly  speaking  with  the 
foundation  of  the  English  Palestine  Exploration 
Fund  in  18G5."(^  The  reason  for  this  delay  is 
not  far  to  seek.  From  the  time  that  Christians 
first  began  to  visit  Palestine   to  a  comparatively 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  lin 

recent  date  all  pilgrimages  were  prompted  by 
religious,  not  by  scientific  motives.  The  interest 
of  the  pilgrims  was  excited  only  by  those  places 
which  were  pointed  out  to  them  as  the  scenes 
of  sacred  events,  and  the  knowledge  they  brought 
home  consisted  chiefly  of  descriptions  of  the 
places  held  in  special  veneration.  Li  1841  there 
appeared  in  three  volmnes  a  work  entitled  Biblical 
Researches,  in  which  Professor  Edward  Robinson 
recorded  the  results  of  his  travels  in  Palestine 
during  the  year  1838.  In  1852  Robinson  made  a 
second  journey.  During  these  two  trips  he  and 
his  companions  worked  with  ceaseless  industry, 
always  accurately  measuring  the  distances,  and 
describing  the  route,  even  to  the  smallest  detail. 
This  painstaking  care  made  the  accounts  so 
valuable  that  his  books  marked  a  turning  point 
in  the  whole  matter  of  Palestinian  research,  and 
could  serve  as  a  foundation  upon  which  all  future 
researches  might  rest. 

Among  other  travelers  who  have  made  valuable 
contriI)utions  to  our  knowledge  of  Palestine,  the 
most  important  are  Titus  Tobler,  H.  V.  Guerin, 
E.  Renan,  and  G.  A.  Smith.  But  the  better  the 
land  came  to  be  known,  the  more  fully  was  it 
realized  that  the  complete  systematic  exploration 
of  the  land  was  beyond  the  power  of  individual 
travelers.  Hence  in  1865  a  number  of  men 
interested  in  Palestinian  research  met  in  London 


120  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

and  organized  a  society  known  as  the  Palestine 
Exploration  Fund.  Its  object  was  the  complete, 
systematic,  and  scientific  exploration  of  the  Holy 
Land,  especially  for  the  pm-pose  of  elucidating  the 
Scriptures.  The  idea  was  taken  up  with  great 
enthusiasm,  and  from  the  beginning  until  now 
the  society  has  been  actively  engaged  in  illuminat- 
ing Palestine  past  and  present.  During  the  early 
history  of  the  Fund  few  excavations  were  carried 
on,  and  these  were  confined  to  the  city  of  Jeru- 
salem; but  since  1890  several  mounds  in  southern 
Palestine  have  been  excavated,  the  most  important 
being  Tel-el-Hesy,  the  probable  site  of  ancient 
Lachish,  and  the  site  of  the  important  city  of 
Gezer.  At  present  (1912)  the  site  of  ancient 
Beth-Shemesh  is  being  excavated. 

The  German  Palestine  Society  was  organized  in 
1877  for  a  similar  purpose.  When  the  English 
surveyors  were  prevented  by  the  Turkish  govern- 
ment from  completing  the  survey  of  eastern 
Palestine  the  German  society  took  up  the  work, 
and  its  results  are  embodied  in  a  map  now  in 
process  of  publication.  The  principal  excavations 
of  the  German  society  were  carried  on  between 
1903  and  1907  at  Tel-el  Mutasellim,  the  ancient 
Megiddo,  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Benzinger 
and  Dr.  Schumacher.  Dr.  Sellin  carried  on  exca- 
vations at  the  neighboring  Taanach  for  the 
Austrian    government    between    1902    and    1904. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  121 

Two  other  sites  have  been  excavated — Jericho  by 
the  Germans  and  Samaria  by  Harvard  University, 
and  though  no  epoch-making  finds  have  come  to 
light  ia  these  two  places,  the  results  illuminate  the 
early  history  of  Palestine. 

Phoenicia  has  yielded  some  of  its  treasures. 
The  first  of  importance,  found  in  1855  in  the 
Necropolis  of  Sitlon,  was  the  sarcophagus  of 
Eshmunazar,  king  of  Sidon.  Since  then  various 
other  sites  have  been  examined,  and  much  ma- 
terial has  been  unearthed,  throwing  light  on  the 
history,  religion,  art,  and  civilization  of  these 
ancient  neighbors  of  Israel.  In  the  year  1868  a 
German  missionary,  the  Rev.  F.  Klein,  discovered 
at  Diban,  the  site  of  an  ancient  royal  city  of  Moab, 
a  large  stone,  with  an  inscription  of  Mesha,  a  king 
of  Moab  in  the  ninth  century  B.  C.  Between  1888 
and  1891  investigations  were  conducted,  for  the 
Royal  Museum  in  Berlin,  at  the  moimd  of  Zenjirli, 
once  a  city  in  the  land  Shamal,  near  the  northern 
limits  of  Syria,  south  of  the  Issus,  about  forty 
miles  inland  The  old  citadel  was  uncovered,  and 
various  sculptures,  showing  Hittite  influence,  a 
magnificent  statue  of  Esarhaddon,  king  of  Assyria, 
a  huge  statue  of  the  god  Hadad,  and  several 
Aramaic  inscriptions  of  great  value,  as  illustrating 
early  Syrian  civiHzation,  were  found.  More  re- 
cently, in  1906  and  1907,  Professor  Winckler 
visited  Boghaz-koei,  in  Asia  ]\Iinor,  a  center  of 


122  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

early  Ilittitc  civilization,  where  he  uncovered 
thousands  of  tablets  which  throw  new  light  upon 
the  history  of  western  Asia  in  ancient  times. 
Thus,  generation  after  generation,  amid  dangers 
and  hardships,  a  body  of  enthusiastic,  self-sacrific- 
ing men  have  toiled  almost  day  and  night  in 
order  to  restore  to  life  a  civilization  buried  for 
many  centuries  beneath  the  sands  of  the  desert 
and  the  ruins  of  ancient  cities,  and  we  are  only 
at  the  beginning.  What  revelations  the  next 
fifty  years  may  have  in  store! 

The  results  of  these  expeditions  have  been 
enthusiastically  welcomed  by  all  who  are  interested 
in  antiquity:  the  students  of  history,  art,  science, 
anthropology,  early  civilization,  and  many  others. 
They  are,  however,  of  special  interest  to  the 
Bible  student;  and  it  is  well  to  remember  that, 
whatever  additional  motives  may  be  responsible 
for  excavations  at  the  present  time,  from  the 
beginning  until  now  the  desire  to  find  illustrations, 
or  confirmations  of  scriptural  statements,  has 
played  a  prominent  part.  'To  what  end,"  says 
Professor  Delitzsch,^^)  "this  toil  and  trouble  in 
distant,  inhospitable  and  danger-ridden  lands? 
Why  all  this  expense  in  ransacking  to  their  utmost 
depths  the  rubbish  heaps  of  forgotten  centuries, 
where  we  know  neither  treasures  of  gold  nor  of 
silver  exist?  Wliy  this  zealous  emulation  on  the 
part  of  the  nations  to  secure  the  greatest  possible 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  123 

number  of  mounds  for  excavation?  And  whence, 
too,  that  constantly  increasing  interest,  that 
burning  enthusiasm,  born  of  generous  sacrifice, 
now  being  bestowed  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic 
upon  the  excavations  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria? 
One  answer  echoes  to  all  these  questions,  one 
answer  which,  if  not  absolutely  adequate,  is  yet 
largely  the  reason  and  consummation  of  it  all — 
the  Bible." 

Our  purpose  is  to  discuss  the  bearing  of  recent 
researches  in  Bible  lands  upon  the  Christian  view 
of  the  Old  Testament,  that  is,  the  view  which 
looks  upon  the  Old  Testament  as  containing 
records  of  divine  revelations  granted  in  divers 
portions  and  in  divers  manners  to  the  people  of 
Israel.  Concerning  this  bearing,  two  distinct  and 
opposing  claims  are  made:  on  the  one  hand,  it  is 
said  that  archaeological  research  only  confirms  the 
familiar  view  of  the  Bible  as  a  trustworthy  and 
unique  record  of  religion  and  history;  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  claimed  that  archa?ological 
research  has  shown  the  Old  Testament  to  be 
untrustworthy  as  to  history,  and  as  to  religion, 
what  has  hitherto  been  regarded  as  original  with 
the  Hebrews  is  claimed  to  have  been  borrowed 
almost  bodily  from  the  surrounding  nations. 

What  is  the  true  situation?  The  archaeological 
material  which  has  more  or  less  direct  bearing 
upon  our  inquiry  may  be  roughly  arranged  under 


124  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

two  heads:  (1)  The  Historico-Geographical;  (2)  The 
Eoligio-I^tliical.  The  present  chapter  deals  with 
the  bearnig  of  the  historico-geographical  material 
upon  the  Old  Testament  historical  records,  the 
other  class  being  reserved  for  the  succeeding 
chapter.  The  next  step  in  the  discussion  will  be 
to  enumerate  at  least  the  more  important  finds 
having  a  more  or  less  direct  relation  to  the  Old 
Testament.  Many  archieological  objects  have  been 
brought  to  light,  which,  though  they  have  but 
indirect  bearing  upon  the  Old  Testament,  have 
wonderfully  illuminated  the  life  of  the  ancient 
East,  and  thus  have  made  more  distinct  the 
general  historical  background  upon  which  the 
scenes  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament  were  enacted. 
But  a  more  important  source  of  information  are 
the  Lnscri{)lions  which  have  been  discovered  by 
the  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands.  These 
mscriptions  were  written  on  all  kinds  of  material 
— granite,  alabaster,  wood,  clay,  papyrus,  etc.; 
shaped  in  a  variety  of  forms — tablets,  cylinders, 
rolls,  statues,  walls,  etc.;  and  they  have  been  dug 
out  of  mounds,  tombs,  pyramids,  and  many  other 
places.  What,  then,  are  the  most  important  finds? 
The  first  thing  to  bear  in  mind  is  that  the 
inscriptions  have  very  little  to  say  about  the  earlier 
period  of  Hebrew  history.  Says  Driver,  (®)  "With 
the  exception  of  the  statement  on  the  stele  of 
Merneptah,    that    'Israel   is   desolated,'    the   first 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  125 

event  connected  with  Isruel  antl  its  ancestors 
wliicli  the  inscriptions  mention  or  attest,  is 
Shishak's  uivasion  of  Jutlah  in  the  reign  of  Reho- 
boam;  and  the  first  Israchtes  whom  they  specify 
by  name  are  Omri  and  his  son  Ahab."  Before 
considering  the  statement  on  the  stele  of  Mernep- 
tah,  attention  may  be  given  to  certain  inscriptions 
which  throw  considerable  light  on  conditions  in 
Palestuie  before  the  Plebrew  conquest,  namely, 
the  so-called  Tel-el-Amarna  tablets.(^)  These  tab- 
lets were  discovered  by  accident  in  the  whiter 
of  1887-1888  at  Tel-el-Amarna,  the  site  of  the 
ancient  capital  of  Amenophis  IV  of  Kgypt,  about 
midway  between  Memphis  and  Thebes.  On  exam- 
ination they  proved  to  be  a  part  of  the  official 
archives  of  Amenophis  III  (1411-1375)  and 
Amenophis  IV  (1375-1358),  consisting  almost 
entirely  of  letters  and  reports  addressed  to  these 
two  Pharaohs  by  their  officials  in  western  Asia, 
and  by  rulers  who  sustained  close  relations  to 
the  Egyptian  court.  The  royal  letters,  about 
forty  in  number,  are  chiefly  from  kings  of  the 
Hittites,  of  the  Mitanni,  of  Assyria,  and  of  Baby- 
lonia. The  rest  of  the  correspondence,  about  two 
hundred  and  fifty  letters,  is  of  much  greater 
historical  interest;  it  consists  of  letters  from 
Egyptian  governors  in  various  cities  of  Palestine, 
Phoenicia,  and  Syria, 
These  inscriptions  show  that  about  B.  C.  1400, 


12G  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

about  two  liundnHl  y(>ars  boforo  the  Hebrew  con- 
quest, Palestiuc!  and  the  neii^liboring  countries 
formed  an  Egyptian  province  under  the  rule  of 
Egyptian  governors  stationed  in  all  principal 
towns.  At  tlie  time  the  Egyptians  had  con- 
siderable diflieulty  in  niaintauiing  their  authority. 
Their  power  was  threatened  by  the  Hittites  and 
other  powerful  neighbors,  by  the  dissatisfied 
native  population,  by  the  Habiri,  who  seem  to  have 
Ix^en  invaders  from  the  desert,  and  by  the  intrigues 
and  rivalri(>s  of  the  I<]gyptian  governors  themselves. 
Practically  all  the  principal  cities  of  the  land  are 
mentioncMl  in  these  letters.  From  the  standpoint 
of  Old  Testament  study,  six  letters  written  by 
Abdi-hiba,  Governor  of  Jerusalem,  are  of  special 
interest.  He,  like  many  of  the  other  governors, 
is  in  difficulty.  The  Habiri  are  pressing  him  hard; 
the  neighboring  citi(>s  of  Gezer,  liachish,  and 
Askelon  are  aiding  the  enemy;  he  has  been  slan- 
dered before  the  king  and  accused  of  disloyalty. 
In  the  letters  he  emphatically  protests  his  inno- 
cence. One  of  them  reads:  'To  the  king  my  lord, 
say  also  thus:  It  is  Abdi-hiba,  thy  servant;  at 
the  feet  of  my  lord  the  king  twice  seven  times, 
and  twice  seven  times  I  fall.  What  have  I  done 
against  the  king  my  lord?  They  backbite,  they 
slander  me  before  the  king  my  lord,  saying: 
Abdi-hiba  has  fallen  away  from  the  king  his  lord. 
Behold,   as  for  me,   neither  my  father  nor  my 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  127 

mother  set  me  in  this  place;  the  arm  of  the  mighty 
king  caused  me  to  enter  Uito  the  house  of  my 
father.  Why  should  I  commit  a  sin  against  the 
king  my  lord?" 

Perhaps  the  most  surprising  fact  about  these 
letters  is  that  the  Palestinian  governors  used,  in 
the  correspondence  with  their  superiors  in  Egypt, 
not  the  Egyptian  or  native  Canaan ite,  but  the 
Babylonian  language,  which  seems  conclusive 
evidence  that  for  some  time  ])reviously  AVestern 
Asia  had  been  mider  Babylonian  influence.  With- 
out doubt  this  influence  was  primarily  political, 
but  naturally  it  would  bring  with  it  (elements  of 
civiUzation,  art,  science,  and  religion.  Now  and 
then  wortls  in  the  Canaanite  hmguage  occur, 
either  independently,  or  for  the  purpose  of  explain- 
ing a  Babylonian  expression  in  the  more  familiar 
dialect  of  the  scribe.  These  Canaanite  words  are 
hanJly  distinguishable  from  the  Hebrew  of  the 
Old  Testament.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the 
pre-Israelite  inhabitants  of  Palestine  were  closely 
akin  to  the  Hebrews,  and  spoke  substantially  the 
same  language.  The  inscriptions  of  later  Egyptian 
kings,  during  the  thirteenth  and  the  early  part 
of  the  twelfth  century,  throw  little  additional 
light  on  conditions  hi  Palestine,  except  that  it 
becomes  increasingly  clear  that  Egypt  cannot 
maintain  its  hold  on  the  land.  Subsequent  to 
Rameses  III   (119S-1167)   Palestine  was  entirely 


1?S  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

lost  to  Egypt  for  several  centuries,  which  explains 
why  the  Ileljixnvs  were  not  disturbed  by  the 
empire  on  the  Nile  in  their  attempts  to  establish 
theniselves  in  Palestine. 

The  first  direct  reference  to  Israel  in  the  inscrip- 
tions apparently  takes  us  near  the  time  of  the 
exodus.  Archaeology  has  nothing  to  say  directly 
about  the  exodus;  but  in  the  enumeration  of  his 
victories,  Merneptah  II,  thought  to  be  the  Pharaoh 
during  whose  reign  the  exodus  took  place,  uses 
these  words:  "Israel  is  lost,  his  seed  is  not." 
The  discovery  of  this  inscription  in  1896  was 
hailed  with  gnvit  rejoicing,  for  at  last  the  name 
"Israel"  was  found  in  an  Egyptian  inscription 
coming,  approximately  at  least,  from  the  time  of 
the  exodus;  but,  unfortunately,  the  reference  is 
so  indefinite  that  its  exact  significance  and  bearing 
upon  the  date  of  the  exodus  is  still  mider  dis- 
cussion. It  is  to  be  noted  that,  whereas  the 
other  places  or  peoples  named  in  the  inscription 
have  the  determinative  for  "country,"  "Israel" 
lias  the  determinative  for  "men";  perhaps  an 
evidence  that  the  reference  is  not  to  the  land  of 
Israel,  or  to  Israel  permanently  settled,  but  to  a 
tribe  or  people  at  the  time  without  a  settled  abode. 
But  where  was  Israel  at  the  time?  To  this  a 
variety  of  answers  have  been  given.  D.  R.  Fother- 
ingham  suggests  that  the  ref(!rence  is  to  the 
destruction   of   the   crops   of   Israel   m   Goshen. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  129 

Israel,  he  thinks,  had  just  left,  with  the  crops 
Luiharvested.  These  Merneptah  claims  to  have 
destroyed.(^)  Others  believe  that  the  Israelites 
had  already  entered  Canaan  when  tliey  suffered 
the  defeat  mentioned  by  Merneptah.  Petrie 
thinks  that  the  Israelites  defeated  were  in  Palestine, 
but  that  they  had  no  connection  with  the  tribes 
that  had  a  part  in  the  biblical  exodus;  he  believes 
that  the  latter  were  still  in  Goshen  at  the  time 
of  this  defeat. ('•')  Still  others  believe  that  the 
Israelites  were,  at  the  time  of  the  defeat,  in  the 
wilderness  south  of  Palestine,  and  that  the  claim 
of  Merneptah  is  simply  an  attempt  to  account  for 
their  disappearance  from  Egypt,  And  now  comes 
ICerdmans,  of  Leiden,  with  the  suggestion  that 
the  Israelites  defeated  by  Merneptah  were  the 
Israelites  before  they  went  down  to  Egypt.  (^")  It 
is  seen,  therefore,  that  the  reference  on  the  stele 
of  Merneptah,  while  of  much  interest,  because  it 
is  the  first  mention  of  Israel  in  an  Egyptian  inscrip- 
tion, after  all  throws  little  light  upon  the  date 
and  the  events  of  the  exodus. 

The  next  monument  of  importance  contains  an 
account  of  the  invasion  of  Palestine  by  Shishak,  five 
years  after  the  death  of  Solomon.  On  the  southern 
wall  of  the  court  of  the  great  temple  of  Amen  at 
Karnak  the  king  has  left  a  pictorial  representation 
of  his  campaign.  A  giant  figure  is  represented  as 
holding  in  his  left  hand  the  ends  of  ropes  which 


130  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

bind  long  rows  of  captives  neck  to  neck.  Their 
hands  are  tied  behind  them,  and  the  victor's  right 
hand  holds  a  rod  with  which  he  threatens  them. 
The  names  of  the  conquered  cities  are  inscribed 
on  shields  that  cover  the  lower  part  of  the  body 
of  each  prisoner.  Some  of  the  most  familiar 
names  in  this  list  are  Gaza,  Abel,  Adiillam,  Beth- 
horon,  Aijalon,  Gibeon,  and  Shunem.(") 

From  about  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century 
on  inscriptions  containing  references  to  kings  of 
Israel,  or  to  events  in  which  the  Hebrews  played 
important  parts,  become  more  numerous.  To  the 
reign  of  Omri  (889-875)  and  his  inmiediate  suc- 
cessors refers  the  inscription  of  Mesha  on  the  so- 
called  Moabite  Stone. ('^)  This  notable  specimen 
of  antiquity  is  a  stone  of  a  bluish-black  color, 
about  two  feet  wide,  nearly  four  feet  high,  and 
fourteen  and  one-half  inches  thick ;  rounded  at  the 
top,  and,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  dis- 
coverer, the  Rev.  F.  Klein,  also  at  the  bottom, 
which,  however,  is  doubtful.  The  value  of  the 
stone  lies  not  only  in  the  fact  that  it  preserves 
one  of  the  most  ancient  styles  of  Hebrew  writing, 
but  more  especially  in  the  historical,  topographical, 
and  religious  Information  it  furnishes.  In  2  Kings 
3  we  read  of  the  relations  between  Moab  and 
Omri  antl  his  successors.  Omri  had  subdued  Moab 
and  had  collected  from  her  a  yearly  tribute.  Ahab 
had  enjoyed  the  same  revenue,  amounting  during 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  131 

Mesha's  reign  to  the  wool  of  a  hundred  thousand 
lambs  and  a  hundred  thousand  rams.  At  the 
close  of  Ahab's  reign  Mesha  refused  to  continue 
the  payment  of  the  tribute.  The  allied  kings  of 
Israel,  Judah,  and  Edom  marched  with  their 
armies  against  the  Moabites,  who  fled  for  refuge 
within  the  strong  fortress  of  Kir-hareseth,  where 
Mesha  offered  up  his  own  son  as  a  burnt-offering 
to  Chemosh,  his  god;  whereupon  "there  was  great 
wrath  agahist  Israel,  and  they  departed  from 
them  and  returned  to  their  ovm  land." 

The  Moabite  Stone  was  set  up  by  King  Mesha 
to  his  god  Chemosh  in  commemoration  of  this 
deliverance.  The  opening  lines  read:  "I  am 
Mesha,  son  of  Chemosh-ken,  king  of  Moab,  the 
Daibonite.  My  father  reigned  over  Moab  for 
thirty  years,  and  I  reigned  after  my  father.  And 
I  made  this  high  place  for  Chemosh  in  Korhah, 
a  high  place  of  salvation,  because  he  had  saved 
me  from  all  the  assailants,  and  because  he  had 
let  me  see  my  desire  upon  all  them  that  hated 
me.  Omri,  king  of  Israel,  afflicted  Moab  for  many 
days,  because  Chemosh  was  angry  with  his  land; 
and  his  son  succeeded  him;  and  he  also  said,  I 
will  afflict  Moab.  In  my  days  said  he  thus.  But 
I  saw  my  desire  upon  him  and  his  house,  and 
Israel  perished  with  an  everlasting  destruction." 
As  a  supplement  to  the  Old  Testament  narrative, 
his  account  is  very  instructive.     The  mention  of 


132  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Yah  well,  the  God  of  Israel,  is  of  interest,  as  also 
the  fact  that  in  Moab,  as  m  Israel,  national  dis- 
aster was  attributed  to  the  anger  of  the  national 
deity.  The  idiom  in  which  the  inscription  is 
written  tliffers  only  dialectically  from  the  Hebrew 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Small  idiomatic  differences 
are  observable,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  shares 
with  it  several  distinctive  features,  so  that,  on 
the  whole,  it  resembles  Hebrew  far  more  closely 
than  any  other  Semitic  language  now  known. 
In  point  of  style  the  inscription  reads  almost  like 
a  page  from  one  of  the  earlier  historical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament. 

From  the  time  of  Omri  on  Israel  came  into 
frequent  contact  with  Assyria;  indeed,  the  fortunes 
of  Israel  were  closely  bound  up  with  the  fortunes 
of  this  great  Eastern  world-power. ('^)  In  885,  at 
about  the  time  when  Omri  had  finally  succeeded 
in  overcoming  his  rivals,  Ashurnasirpal  ascended 
the  throne  of  Assyria.  He  determined  to  restore 
the  former  glory  of  his  nation,  which  had  become 
eclipsed  under  his  incompetent  predecessors;  and 
with  him  began  a  period  of  conquest  which  ulti- 
mately brought  the  whole  eastern  shore  of  the 
Mediterranean  under  Assyrian  sway.  In  860 
Shalmaneser  III(")  succeeded  his  father  upon  the 
throne  of  Assyria,  and  in  the  following  year  he 
renewed  the  attack  upon  the  West.  In  854  he 
felt  ])repared  for  a  supreme  effort,  and  it  is  in  the 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  133 

account  of  this  campaign  that  we  read  for  the 
first  time  the  name  of  an  Israelite  king  in  the 
Assyrian  inscription.  Shahnaneser  advanced  with 
great  speed  and  success  until  he  reached  Karkar, 
near  the  Orontes,  a  little  north  of  Hamath.  In 
the  account  of  the  campaign  he  mentions,  among 
the  allies  who  fought  against  him,  Ahab  of  Israel, 
who,  he  says,  furnished  two  thousand  chariots  and 
ten  thousand  men.  The  campaign  is  recorded  in 
several  inscriptions,  in  all  of  which  Shalmaneser 
claims  a  complete  victory. 

The  most  famous  inscription  of  this  king  is  the 
one  on  the  so-called  Black  Obelisk,  an  alabaster 
monolith  found  at  Nimrud  in  1846.  This  monu- 
ment is  inscribed  on  all  four  sides  with  an  account, 
in  one  hundred  and  ninety  lines,  of  the  expedi- 
tions undertaken  during  thirty-one  years  of  the 
king's  reign.  In  the  text  of  the  inscription 
reference  is  made  to  campaigns  against  the  west 
land  (Syria  and  Palestine)  in  859,  854,  850,  849, 
846,  842,  and  839.  In  addition  to  the  inscription 
the  monument  contains,  on  the  upper  portion, 
five  series  of  four  reliefs  each,  each  series  repre- 
senting the  tribute  brought  to  the  Assyrian  king  by 
kings  whom  he  had  conquered  or  who  sought  his 
favor.  In  the  inscription  itself,  no  mention  is 
made  of  Israel  or  the  king  of  Israel,  but  the  second 
tier  of  reliefs  is  of  much  interest.  It  depicts  a 
prince  or  deputy  prostrating  himself  before  Shal- 


134  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

maneser,  and  behind  the  prostrated  figure  are 
attendants  bearing  gifts  of  various  kinds.  The 
superscription  reads:  "The  tribute  of  Jehu,  son  of 
Oniri,  silver,  gold,  a  golden  bowl,  a  golden  ladle, 
golden  goblets,  golden  pitchers,  lead,  a  staff  for 
the  hand  of  the  king,  shafts  of  spears,  I  received 
of  him."  In  842  Shalnianeser  undertook  an  ex- 
pedition against  Hazael  of  Damascus,  and  in  the 
account  of  this  expedition  he  says,  "At  that  time 
I  received  the  tribute  of  the  Tyrians  and  Sidonians, 
and  of  Jehu,  the  son  of  Omri." 

About  half  a  century  after  the  occurrence  of 
Jehu's  name  in  the  inscription  of  Shalmaneser  III 
Israel  is  mentioned  again  as  tributary  to  Assyria. 
Adad-nirari  IV  (812-783),  after  enumerating  other 
countries  subjugated  by  him,  writes:  "From  the 
Euphrates  to  the  land  of  the  Hatti,  the  west 
coimtry  in  its  entire  compass.  Tyre,  Sidon,  the 
land  of  Omri,  Edom,  Philistia,  as  far  as  the  great 
sea  of  the  setting  of  the  sun  (Mediterranean  Sea), 
I  subjected  to  my  yoke;  payment  of  tribute  I 
imposed  upon  them." 

Adad-nirari  was  succeeded  by  a  series  of  weak 
kings,  during  whose  reign  the  power  of  Assyria 
declined,  but  in  745  the  great  Tiglath-pileser  IV, 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  also  under  the 
name  Pul,  ascended  the  throne.  He  succeeded  in 
reorganizing  the  resources  of  the  empire  and  in 
rekindling  its  ambitions  for  conquest.    This  ener- 


TTIE  OLD  TESTAMENT  135 

getic  king  has  left  several  inscriptions  of  much 
interest  to  the  student  of  Old  Testament  history. 
In  one  of  these,  narrating  an  expedition  against 
northern  Syria  about  B.  C.  738,  he  mentions  a 
king,  "Azriau  of  the  land  of  Yaudi."  It  has 
been  customary  to  identify  this  king  with  Azariah 
(Uzziah)  of  Judah.  The  contents  speak  against 
this  identification,  and  since  the  inscriptions  found 
in  Zenjirli  have  established  the  existence  in 
northern  Syria  of  a  state  called  Yaudi,  perhaps 
the  king  mentioned  in  Tiglath-pileser's  inscription 
was  a  ruler  of  this  northern  kingdom.  In  the 
annals  which  tell  of  his  victory  over  Azriau  of 
Yaudi  he  mentions  Menahem  of  Samaria  as  one 
of  the  kings  whose  tribute  he  received.  The 
same  inscription,  referring  to  events  in  734  or  733, 
speaks  of  a  victory  over  the  House  of  Omri,  and 
the  assassination  of  the  king  Pekah,  but  the 
inscription  is  so  fragmentary  that  the  details  are 
obscure.  Fortunately,  the  same  events  are  re- 
corded in  another  inscription,  which  is  in  a  better 
state  of  preservation,  though  it  also  has  several 
gaps.  After  enumerating  several  cities  which  he 
captured  in  Palestine,  among  them  Gaza,  he  con- 
tinues: "The  land  of  the  dynasty  of  Omri  .  .  .  the 
whole  of  its  inhabitants,  their  possessions  to 
Assyria  I  deported.  Pekah,  their  king,  they  slew, 
Hoshea  to  rule  over  them  appointed.  Ten  talents 
of  gold,  a  thousand  talents  of  silver,  I  received 


136  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

as  tribute."  Ahaz  of  Judah  is  also  mentioned  in 
an  inscription  of  Tiglath-pilcser,  as  paying  tribute, 
but  it  is  not  clear  to  what  year  this  refers. 

Tiglath-pileser  died  in  727,  and  was  succeeded 
by  Shalmaneser  V,  who  in  turn  gave  place  in 
722  to  Sargon  II.  Shalmaneser  is  mentioned  as 
the  king  who  attacked  the  northern  kingdom,  and 
the  Old  Testament  narrative  leaves  the  impression 
that  he  was  the  king  who  finally  captured  the 
city  of  Samaria.  The  inscriptions  show  that  it 
was  Sargon  who  overcame  the  city  soon  after  the 
beginning  of  his  reign.  In  one  of  his  inscriptions 
he  calls  himself,  "the  brave  hero  .  .  .  who  over- 
threw the  Plouse  of  Omri."  In  another  he  says: 
"Samaria  I  besieged,  I  took.  27,290  of  its  inhab- 
itants I  carried  away;  50  chariots  I  gathered  from 
them;  the  rest  of  them  I  permitted  to  retain  their 
possessions.  Over  them  I  appointed  my  governor, 
and  upon  them  I  imposed  the  tribute  of  the 
former  king."  The  annals  of  Sargon,  which  give 
an  account  of  the  events  during  his  reign  in 
chronological  order,  give  the  date  of  the  capture 
of  Samaria.  After  the  introduction,  he  continues: 
"In  the  beghming  of  my  reign  and  in  the  first 
year  of  my  reign,  .  .  .  Samaria  I  besieged  and 
took.  .  .  .  27,290  inhabitants  I  carried  away;  50 
chariots  as  my  royal  portion  I  collected  there.  .  .  . 
I  restored  and  made  as  it  was  before.  .  .  .  People 
from  all  countries,  my  captives,  I  settled  there.    My 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  137 

official  I  appointed  as  governor  over  them.  Tribute 
and  taxes  like  the  Assyrian  I  imposed  upon  them." 
After  the  destruction  of  the  northern  kingdom 
the  life  of  the  Hebrews  became  centered  in  Judah 
and  Jerusalem.  The  fall  of  Samaria  made  an  im- 
pression on  the  South  that  was  remembered  for 
some  time.  Nevertheless,  the  states  along  the 
eastern  shore  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  bore  im- 
patiently the  Assyrian  yoke,  and  in  most  cities 
there  arose  a  party  which,  relying  on  the  promised 
help  of  Egypt,  was  eager  to  free  itself  from  Assyria. 
That  this  party  gained  a  foothold  also  in  Jeru- 
salem is  seen  from  the  prophecy  in  Isa.  20,  in 
which  the  prophet  warns  the  people  against  trust- 
ing in  Egypt  and  rebelling  against  Assyria.  In 
the  same  direction  points  an  inscription  of  Sargon 
describing  an  expedition  against  Ashdod:  "The 
people  of  Philistia,  Judah,  Edom,  and  Moab, 
dwelling  beside  the  sea,  bringing  tribute  and 
presents  to  Ashur  my  lord,  were  speaking  treason. 
The  people  and  their  evil  chiefs,  to  fight  against 
me,  to  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt,  a  prince  who 
could  not  save  them,  their  presents  carried  and 
besought  his  alliance."  In  all  probability,  Judah 
did  not  become  involved  seriously  at  this  time. 
But  the  death  of  Sargon  in  705  seems  to  have  been 
a  signal  for  revolt  in  many  parts  of  the  Assyrian 
empire.  His  son  and  successor,  Sennacherib,  gave 
these  rebellions  his  immediate  attention;  until  702 


138  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

he  was  kept  busy  in  the  East,  but  in  that  year 
he  turned  westward,  and  by  701  was  ready  to 
attack  Judah.  The  campaign  and  the  remarkable 
deliverance  of  Jerusalem  on  that  occasion  are 
recorded  at  length  in  2  Kings  18,  19,  and  Isa.  36, 
37.  The  account  of  the  same  campaign  by  the 
Assyrian  king  is,  from  the  standpoint  of  Old  Testa- 
ment history,  perhaps  the  most  interesting  his- 
torical inscription  left  by  an  Assyrian  ruler.  It 
is  found  in  the  so-called  Taylor  Cylinder,(''^) 
column  2,  line  34,  to  column  3,  line  41.  The 
most  interesting  portion  reads: 

To  the  city  of  Ekron  I  went;  the  governors 

[and]  princes,  who  had  committed  a  transgression,  I  killed  and 

bound  their  corpses  on  poles  around  the  city. 

The  inhabitants  of  the  city,  who  had  committed  sin  and  evil, 

I  counted  as  spoil;  to  the  rest  of  them 

who  had  committed  no  sin  and  wrong,  who  had 

no  guilt,  I  spoke  peace.    Padi 

their  king,  I  brought  forth  from  the 

city  of  Jerusalem;  upon  the  throne  of  lordship  over  them 

I  placed  him.    The  tribute  of  my  lordship 

I  laid  upon  him.    But  Hezekiah 

of  Judah,  who  had  not  submitted  to  my  yoke, 

I  besieged  46  of  his  strong  cities,  fortresses,  and  small  cities 

of  their  environs,  without  number,  [and] 

by  the  battering  of  rams  and  the  assault  of  engines, 

by  the  attack  of  foot  soldiers,  mines,  breaches,  and  axes, 

I  besieged,  I  took  them;  200,150  men,  young  [and]  old,  male 

and  female,  horses,  mules,  asses,  camels,  oxen 
and  sheep  without  number  I  brought  out  from  them, 
I  counted  them  as  spoil.     [Hezekiah]  himself  I  shut  up  like 

a  caged  bird  in  Jerusalem 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  139 

his  royal  city;  the  walls  I  fortified 

against  him  [and]  whosoever  came  out  of  the  Rates  of  the 

city,  I  turned 
back.     His  cities,  which  I  had  plundered,  I  eoparated  from 

his  land 
and  gave  them  to  IMitinti,  king  of  Ashdod, 
to  Padi,  king  of  Ekron,  and  to  Sil-Bel, 
king  of  Gaza,  and  [tlms]  diminished  his  territory. 
To  the  former  tribute,  paid  yearly, 
I  added  the  tribute  and  presents  of  my  lordship  and 
laid  that  upon  him.    Ilezekiah  himself 

was  overwhelmed  by  the  fear  of  the  brightness  of  my  lordship; 
the  Arabians  and  his  other  faithful  warriors 
whom,  as  a  defense  for  Jerusalem  his  royal  city 
he  had  brought  in,  fell  into  fear. 
With  30  talents  of  gold  [and]  800  talents  of  silver,  precious 

stones, 
gukhli  daggassi  (?),  large  lapis  lazuli, 
couches  of  ivory,  thrones  of  ivory, 
ivory,   usu  wood,   box   wood    (?),   of  every  kind,   a   heavy 

treasure, 
and  his  daughters,  his  women  of  the  palace, 
the  young  men  and  young  women,  to  Nineveh,  the  city  of 

my  lordship, 
I  caused  to  be  brought  after  me,  and  he  sent  his  ambassadors, 
to  give  tribute  and  to  pay  homage. 

These  are,  perhaps,  the  most  important  his- 
torical inscriptions  ilKistrating  specific  events  in 
the  history  of  Israel  and  Judah.  There  are,  how- 
ever, many  more  that  make  important,  though 
more  or  less  indirect,  contributions  toward  a  better 
understanding  of  Old  Testament  history.  Just  to 
mention  a  few:  Tirhaka  of  Egypt,  who,  temporarily 
at  least,  interfered  with  the  plans  of  the  Assyrians, 


110  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

appears  several  times  in  the  inscriptions;  the  real 
significance  of  the  events  recorded  in  2  Kings  20. 
12ff'.,  and  Isa.  30,  can  be  understood  only  in 
the  light  of  the  inscriptions;  an  interesting  side- 
light is  thrown  by  the  inscriptions  on  the  biblical 
account  of  Sennacherib's  death.  In  one  of  the 
inscriptions  of  Esarhaddon,  the  son  and  successor 
of  Sennacherib,  we  are  told  that  among  the  twenty- 
two  kings  of  the  land  of  the  Hittites  who  assisted 
him  in  his  building  enterprises  was  Manasseh,  king 
of  Judah.  Ashurbanipal,  the  successor  of  Esar- 
haddon, includes  Manasseh  in  a  similar  list. 
Though  this  king  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament  under  his  Assyrian  name,  it  is  very 
probable  that  he  is  the  king  referred  to  in  Ezra 
4.  10,  where  it  is  said  that  the  ''great  and  noble 
Osnappar"  brought  Babylonians,  Susanians,  Elam- 
ites,  and  men  of  other  nationalities  to  Samaria. 
The  inscriptions  do  not  throw  much  light  upon 
the  closing  years  of  Judah's  history,  but  we  can 
understand  the  events  in  which  Judah  played  a 
part  better  because  the  inscriptions  set  into 
clearer  light  the  general  history  of  Western  Asia. 
The  advance  of  the  Scythians,  the  revival  of  Egypt 
in  the  seventh  century,  the  fall  of  Nineveh,  the 
rise  of  the  Chaldean  empire,  which  reached  its 
highest  glory  under  Nebuchadrezzar,  the  con- 
queror of  Judah — all  these  are  described  in  the 
inscriptions,   or,   at    least,   illuminated  by  them. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  141 

In  a  similar  way  the  inscriptions,  though  not 
mentioning  the  Jewish  exiles  in  Babylonia,  illu- 
minate the  biblical  records  in  many  respects. 
Fortunately,  also,  the  inscriptions  furnish  a  good 
idea  of  the  events  leading  to  the  downfall  of 
Babylon,  which  resulted  in  the  restoration  of  many 
exiles  to  Judah;  and  the  restoration  itself  assumes 
a  new  significance  in  the  light  of  the  inscriptions; 
for  the  permission  to  return  granted  by  Cyrus 
to  the  Jews  is  seen  to  be  in  accord  with  the  general 
policy  of  the  conqueror  to  secure  the  good-will  of 
the  peoples  deported  by  the  Babylonians  by 
restoring  them  to  their  owti  liomes.  The  historical 
situation  of  the  age  may  suggest  another  reason 
for  the  kindly  treatment  of  the  Jews.  It  was 
inevitable  that  sooner  or  later  Cyrus,  or  his  suc- 
cessors, should  come  into  conflict  with  Egypt, 
At  such  time  it  would  be  of  immense  value  to 
him  to  have  near  the  border  of  Egypt  a  nation 
upon  whose  fidelity  and  gratitude  he  could  rely. 
Archaeology  has  not  thrown  any  direct  light  on 
the  condition  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine  under  the 
Persian  rule.  On  the  other  hand,  we  know  a 
great  deal  about  conditions  m  Babylonia  during 
that  period,  and  within  the  past  decade  several 
important  documents  written  on  papyrus  have 
been  found  in  Egypt  which  furnish  mdisputable 
evidence  that  the  island  of  Elephantine,  opposite 
Assuan,  a  short  distance  north  of  the  first  cataract 


142  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

of  the  Nile,  was  the  seat  of  a  Jewish  colony  at 
least  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Cambyses,  king  of 
Persia  (B.  C.  529-521).(»«) 

This  concludes  the  survey  of  the  archaeological 
material  of  a  historical  nature.  It  is  seen  that 
during  the  period  from  the  division  of  the  kingdom 
siil)so(iuent  to  the  death  of  Solomon  to  the  rtestab- 
lishuient  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine  after  the  exile 
the  inscriptions  furnish  most  interesting  and 
instructive  illustrations  of  events  mentioned  or 
alluded  to  in  the  Old  Testament.  As  a  result  the 
history  and  also  the  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment have  been  removed  from  the  isolated  position 
in  which  they  previously  seemed  to  stand.  They 
are  now  seen  to  be  connected  by  many  links  with 
the  great  movements  taking  place  in  the  world 
without. 

The  question  as  to  the  bearing  of  the  archaeo- 
logical historical  records  on  the  historical  records 
of  the  Old  Testament  remains  to  be  considered. 
This  question  was  asked  as  soon  as  the  contents 
of  the  inscriptions  became  known.  The  answers 
have  varied  greatly.  On  the  one  hand,  it  has  been 
claimed  that  the  Old  Testament  records  are  con- 
firmed in  every  detail;  on  the  other,  those  have 
not  been  wanting  who  claimed  that  the  inscrip- 
tions discredit  the  Old  Testament.  Here,  as  in 
other  investigations,  the  true  conclusion  can  be 
reached  only  after  a  careful  examination  of  all 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  143 

the  facts  in  the  case.  In  the  study  of  the  question 
there  are  several  considerations  and  cautions  which 
must  not  be  lost  sight  of  if  we  would  reach  a  true 
estimate.  Some  of  these  cautions  are  suggested 
by  the  nature  of  the  inscriptions. 

In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
most  of  the  archaeological  material  has  come 
from  lands  outside  of  Palestine,  and  that  the 
testimony  is  that  of  people  not  friendly  to  the 
Hebrews.  We  may  expect,  therefore,  that  at 
times  personal  bias  may  have  colored  the  por- 
trayal and  caused  the  Hebrews  to  appear  in  a 
less  favorable  light  than  the  facts  would  warrant, 
or  that  the  events  in  which  the  Hebrews  took  part 
were  described  in  a  manner  to  make  them  favor 
the  interests  of  the  writers. 

Again,  not  every  period  of  Hebrew  history  is 
illuminated  by  the  inscriptions.  True,  the  earliest 
monuments  found  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia  ante- 
date the  birth  of  Jesus  perhaps  more  than  four 
thousand  years;  but  it  is  not  imtil  the  time  of 
Ahab,  king  of  Israel,  that  the  important  historical 
material  begins.  The  references  to  Israel  preced- 
ing the  time  of  the  Assyrian  king,  Shalmaneser 
III,  c.  B.  C.  850,  are  few  and  more  or  less  obscure. 
There  is  the  monument  of  Shishak  in  the  tenth 
century;  but  some  are  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
list  of  the  cities  alleged  to  have  been  conquered 
by  Shishak  was  simply  taken  over  by  him  from 


144  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

an  earlier  document,  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  of 
little  or  no  historical  value.  Israel  is  mentioned 
in  the  inscription  of  Merneptah,  but,  as  has  been 
seen,  the  significance  of  the  brief  reference  is 
obscure;  there  is  nothing  concerning  the  stay  in 
Egypt,  nothing  concerning  tlie  patriarchs,  and 
nothing  concerning  the  earlier  period  that  can  in 
any  way  be  connected  with  the  historical  records 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

Furthermore,  to  get  at  the  true  value  of  the 
evidence  from  the  monuments  we  must  distinguish 
l)etween  facts  and  inferences  from  the  facts.  This 
distinction,  obvious  as  it  seems,  has  not  always 
been  maintained  even  by  eminent  archaeologists. 
For  example,  Professor  Sayce,  who  is  in  just 
repute  among  Assyriologists,  made  a  few  years 
ago  the  statement:  "The  vindication  of  the  reality 
of  Menes  [one  of  the  early  kings  of  Egypt]  means 
the  vindication  also  of  the  historical  character  of 
the  Hebrew  patriarchs."  Surely,  common  sense 
says  that  facts  proving  the  historicity  of  an  early 
king  of  Egypt  do  not  necessarily  prove  the  his- 
toricity of  men  living  many  centuries  later.  Many 
similar  illustrations  might  be  given.  Because 
bricks  made  without  straw  were  found  it  has  been 
claimed  that  every  detail  of  the  Old  Testament 
narrative  concerning  the  stay  of  Israel  in  Egypt 
was  corroborated  by  archaeology.  The  finding  of 
the  walls  of  ro3''al  palaces  in  Babylon  furnished 


THE  OLJ)  TESTAMENT  145 

the  claim  that  the  story  of  the  handwriting  on 
the  wall  was  established  beyond  doubt.  The  find- 
ing of  images  of  (l(;ities  has  been  interpreted  as 
showing  beyond  a  possibility  of  question  the 
historicity  of  the  narrative?  in  Daniel  concerning 
the  image  erected  by  Nebuchadrezzar,  etc.  There 
can  easily  be  too  much  blind  dependence  on 
authority;  an  assumption  of  fact,  upon  the  mere 
dictum  of  some  presumably  honest  and  competent 
scholar.  About  a  generation  ago  a  well-known 
investigator  said,  "Assyriology  has  its  guesses  and 
it  has  its  accurate  knowledge. "(^0  These  words 
might  be  expanded  to  include  the  whole  field  of 
archaeology.  Archaeology  has  its  facts,  and  it  has 
its  inferences.     The  two  must  not  be  confused. 

Moreover,  the  possibility  of  inscribing  lies  upon 
clay  tablets  must  not  be  overlooked.  Sometimes 
it  has  been  claimed,  and  that  most  absurdly,  that 
bc;cause  an  inscription  has  been  engraved  upon 
imperishable  stone  or  clay  it  has  a  superior  value. 
But  the  mere  fact  of  a  record  being  inscribed 
on  a  tablet  of  clay,  perishable  or  imperishable, 
gives  it  no  superiority  over  one  written  on  papyrus 
or  parchment  or  paper.  Clay  tablets  were  to  the 
civilization  of  the  Euphrates  valley  what  print 
paper  is  to  us.  We  all  know  that  paper  is  patient, 
else  the  daily  papers  would  be  of  smaller  size 
and  many  books  would  remain  unwritten.  The 
same   is   true   of  clay  tablets.    Clay  tablets  are 


UG  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

patient.  It  was  recognized  long  ago  by  Assyri- 
ologists  that  the  so-called  historical  mscriptions 
are  not  all  unbiased  statements  of  objective  facts. 
In  many  cases  the  chief  purpose  seems  to  have 
been  the  glorification  of  the  king;  victories  are 
recorded  with  the  greatest  caro,  but  no  mention 
is  made  of  defeats.  For  example:  in  one  of  the 
earliest  inscriptions  mentioning  a  king  of  Israel, 
Shalmaneser  III,  king  of  Assyria,  claims  a  great 
victory  over  the  Western  allies  in  the  battle  of 
Karkar  in  854;  but,  strange  to  say,  the  victory 
resulted  in  a  rather  hast}^  retreat  of  the  Assyrian 
army.  Another  evidence  of  the  ''absolute  reli- 
ability" of  the  historical  tablets  is  offered  by  the 
hiscriptions  of  the  same  king.  In  connection 
with  the  battle  of  Karkar,  one  inscription  declares 
that  the  allies  killed  numbered  14,000;  another, 
20,500;  while  a  third  claims  25,000.  We  have, 
indeed,  reason  to  say  that  "the  (evident  uncer- 
tainty in  the  figures  makes  us  doubt  somewhat 
the  clearness  of  the;  entire  result.  Tlu^  claim  of  a 
great  victory  is  almost  certainly  false. "(^**) 

Once  more:  the  translation  of  the  inscriptions 
is  not  in  every  case  beyond  question.  For  exam- 
ple, in  lines  7-9  of  the  Moabite  Stone  we  read, 
according  to  the  common  translation,  "Now  Omri 
annexed  all  the  land  of  Medeba,  and  Israel  occupied 
it  his  days  and  half  the  days  of  his  son,  forty 
years."    This    rendering   would    imply    that    the 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  147 

period  from  the  conqiu^st  under  Oiriri  to  the  end 
of  the  first  half  of  Ahab's  reign  was  forty  years. 
The  chronology  of  Kings  gives  as  the  total  of 
the  full  reigns  of  the  two  kings  only  thirty-four 
years,  while  the  above  translation  of  the  inscription 
would  require  about  sixty — a  serious  discrepancy. 
Now,  it  is  generally  conceded  that  the  clii'onology 
of  the  Bible  cannot  be  accepted  as  final  hi  all  its 
details,  and  that  it  must  be  checked  by  the  chro- 
nology of  the  inscriptions  wherever  that  is  possible. 
Yet  before  we  can  make  use  of  the  monumental 
testimony  we  should  be  sure  of  its  exact  meaning. 
In  cases  such  as  the  one  mentioned  this  certainty 
is  absent,  and  we  should  move  very  slowly.  An- 
other translation  of  the  passage  has  been  proposed: 
"Omri  conquered  the  whole  land  of  Medeba  and 
held  it  in  possession  as  long  as  he  reigned  and 
during  half  of  my  reign  his  son,  in  all  forty 
years;  but  yet  in  my  reign  Chemosh  recovered 
it."(''')  This  translation  would  bring  the  total 
of  the  two  reigns  to  about  forty  years,  and  thus 
the  chronological  difficulty  apparently  offered  by 
2  Kings  3  would  be  removed. 

The  five  considerations  to  which  attention  has 
been  called  nuist  be  observed  if  we  would  under- 
stand rightly  the  bearing  of  the  monuments  on 
the  Old  Testament,  when  viewed  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  inscriptions.  Attention  must  now 
be    called    to    certain    considerations     touching 


148  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

primarily  the  Old  Testament  that  must  be  re- 
garded in  forming  an  estimate  of  the  value  of 
its  historical  records. 

We  must  remember,  for  example,  that  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Old  Testament  is  essentially  and  pre- 
dominatingly religious.  This  is  recognized  by  the 
Jews,  for  they  do  not  call  any  of  the  so-called 
historical  books  by  that  name.  The  five  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  they  designate  as  Law,  because 
in  these  books  practically  all  Hebrew  legislation 
is  embodied.  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  they 
include  in  the  list  of  prophetic  books,  because 
they  recognize  the  essentially  prophetic  purpose 
of  the  authors.  The  other  books  belong  to  the 
third  division  of  the  Jewish  canon,  called  the 
Writings.  Concerning  the  books  of  Kings,  which 
are  the  principal  historical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  it  has  been  truly  said:  ''Kings,  by 
virtue  of  its  contents,  belongs  as  much  to  the 
prophetical  books  as  to  the  historical.  It  is  not 
a  continuous  chronicle;  it  is  a  book  of  prophetic 
teaching  in  which  sometimes  history,  sometimes 
story,  is  employed  as  the  vehicle  of  teaching.  It 
enforces  the  principle  that  God  is  the  controlling 
power  and  sin  the  disturbing  force  in  the  entire 
history  of  men  and  nations.  f°)  In  a  similar 
manner  the  religious  purpose  predominates  in  the 
other  Old  Testament  historical  books.  They  do 
not  pretend  to  give  a  complete  history  even  of 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  149 

the  Hebrew  people.  The  writers  embodied  only 
such  historical  material  as  was  thought  to  illustrate 
the  self-revelation  of  God  in  the  history  of  indi- 
viduals and  of  the  nation,  or  to  bear  in  some 
marked  way  upon  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  A  modern  secular  historian  is  disappointed 
at  many  omissions  which  would  be  unpardonable 
in  a  strictly  historical  production.  Now,  it  is 
readily  seen  that  the  religious  purpose  may  be 
served,  and  the  didactic  value  of  the  narrative 
may  remain,  even  though  historical  inaccuracies 
in  details  should  be  discovered. 

Another  fact  to  be  remembered  is  the  possible 
difference  in  the  viewpoint  of  several  narrators  of 
one  and  the  same  event.  In  sacred,  as  in  secular 
history,  the  viewpoint  of  the  author  determines 
to  a  considerable  extent  the  character  of  the 
narrative.  For  example:  the  delineation  of  the 
events  of  the  Civil  War  will  not  be  the  same  in 
official  documents,  in  a  secular  history,  in  a  church 
history,  or  in  a  work  containing  personal  memoirs. 
Still  other  differences  might  be  seen  in  narratives 
confined  to  special  incidents.  Such  differences  in 
viewpoint  may  be  noticed  also  among  the  writers 
of  the  Old  Testament  historical  books.  Broadly 
speaking,  part  of  the  historical  literature  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  due  to  prophetic  activity,  part 
to  priestly  activity.  In  writing  history  the 
prophets,    with   their   broad    interest    in    all    the 


150  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

affairs  of  the  nation,  resemble  the  modern  secular 
historian.  They  portray  events  more  objectively 
than  the  priests,  hence  they  are  more  reliable. 
The  priestly  writers  resemble  the  modern  ecclesias- 
tical historian,  who  judges  everyone  and  every- 
thing according  to  their  attitude  toward  the 
peculiar  religious  conceptions  he  represents.  The 
Old  Testament  contains  also  some  personal  memoirs 
(in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah)  and  some  narratives  of 
special  incidents  (Ruth,  Esther),  while  the  his- 
torical books  in  their  present  form  embody  also 
what  may  have  been  official  documents. 

Moreover,  in  estimating  the  reliability  of  the 
Old  Testament  historical  books  we  must  not 
overlook  certain  unconscious  references  and  indi- 
cations which  show  that  the  authors  exercised 
considerable  care  in  producing  the  books.  In  the 
first  place,  historical  statements  appear  to  have 
been  preserved  with  considerable  care,  at  least  so 
far  as  the  substance  is  concerned.  This  may  be 
seen  from  the  retention  of  parallel  narratives  of 
the  same  events,  without  attempts  at  harmonizing 
minor  disagreements.  In  the  second  place,  his- 
tory was  written  with  some  discrimination.  This 
is  evident  especially  in  Kings,  where  the  several 
degrees  in  which  certam  of  the  kings  departed 
from  the  legitimate  religion  of  Israel  are  carefully 
indicated.  A  clear  distinction  is  made  between 
the  relatively   pious  kings,   who  simply  did  not 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  151 

remove  the  high  places  (1  Kings  15.  14;  2  Kmgs 
12.  3)  and  those  who,  in  defiance  of  a  fundamental 
principle  (Exod.  20.  4,  5),  desired  to  represent  the 
spiritual  God  of  Israel  in  images  that  would 
appeal  to  the  senses  (1  Kings  12.  28,  29;  14. 
16,  etc.),  and  those  who,  in  defiance  of  the  first 
requirement  of  the  Decalogue  (Exod.  20.  3),  served 
other  gods  (1  Kings  16.  31-33;  18.  22,  etc.). 
Once  more:  in  the  Old  Testament  records  we  find 
evidence  of  the  historical  consciousness  of  ancient 
Israel  resting  upon  a  very  sure  foundation.  The 
Mosaic  age  was  regarded  as  the  supreme  crisis  in 
the  national  history.  Moses  was  the  great  hero; 
yet  his  grandeur  was  not  able  to  extinguish  the 
consciousness  of  the  glory  of  the  pre-Mosaic  period. 
Throughout  the  entire  literature  Abraham  and 
Jacob  and  Joseph  are  also  connected  with  the 
beginnings  of  the  Hebrew  nation  and  with  the 
beginning  of  the  religious  mission  of  the  people. 
The  memory  of  the  pre-Mosaic  period  seems  in- 
deed to  have  been  securely  founded. 

What,  then,  are  the  results  of  this  compara- 
tive study  ?  The  Old  Testament  world  has  be- 
come a  new  world.  Dark  regions  were  Egypt, 
Assyria,  Elam,  and  other  countries  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament  before  the  explorers  and 
excavators  entered  these  lands.  Now  it  is  com- 
paratively easy  to  trace  with  considerable  accuracy 
the  boundaries  of  empires  that  existed  in  the  first 


153  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

and  second  millenniums  B.  C.  In  addition,  we 
can  fix  with  certainty  the  sites  of  some  Old  Testa- 
ment cities  whose  location  was  previously  un- 
known and,  in  some  cases,  whose  very  existence 
had  been  doubted.  The  topography  of  cities  like 
Nineveh,  Nippur,  and  Babylon  has  become  quite 
definitely  fixed. 

The  historical  gains  are  even  more  remarkable. 
Whole  nations  have  been  resurrected.  Wliat  did 
we  know  a  century  ago  of  Elam?  Nothing  but 
the  name.  What  of  Assyria?  Only  a  few  tra- 
ditions, sometimes  untrustworthy,  preserved  by 
classical  writers,  and  the  statements  of  the  Bible, 
some  of  which  were  unintelligible  because  of  their 
fragmentary  character.  Now  these  and  other 
nations  pass  one  after  the  other  in  review,  great 
and  powerful  in  all  their  ancient  glory.  And, 
almost  every  day,  new  light  is  thrown  on  these 
early  centuries.  Only  a  few  years  ago  it  was 
thought  that  Assyrian  history,  as  distinct  from 
that  of  Babylon,  began  about  B.  C.  1800;  now 
we  know  the  names  of  many  rulers  who  lived 
generations  and  centuries  before  that  date. 

The  chronological  gains  are  especially  important. 
It  is  generally  admitted  that  Hebrew  chronol- 
ogy is  not  always  reliable,  and  various  expedients 
have  been  resorted  to  to  remove  the  difficulties. 
It  was  very  gratifying,  therefore,  to  discover  that 
the   chronological  system  of  the   Assyrians  was 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  153 

more  precise.  Among  the  inscriptions  are  espe- 
cially three  classes  of  public  records  in  which  the 
occurrences  are  carefully  dated:  (1)  Records  of 
the  reigns  of  certain  kings  in  which  their  activities 
are  carefully  arranged  in  chronological  order; 
(2)  business  tablets  in  which  transactions  are 
definitely  dated;  and  (3)  the  so-called  eponym 
lists.  According  to  Assyrian  custom,  each  year 
was  named  after  a  prominent  official.  Lists  of 
these  were  carefully  made  and  kept,  and,  for- 
tunately, large  fragments  of  them  have  been 
preserved.  Two  recensions  of  these  eponym  lists 
have  come  down.  In  one  only  the  names  of 
the  years  are  given;  in  the  other  references  to 
important  events  are  added  to  the  names.  If, 
now,  any  one  of  these  events  can  be  dated,  it 
becomes  possible  to  trace  the  dates  designated  by 
the  names  on  either  side  of  the  one  whose  date 
is  first  determined.  By  means  of  these  lists  and 
the  other  records  the  Assyrian  chronology  can  be 
definitely  fixed  from  about  B.  C.  900  on.  This, 
in  turn,  enables  us  to  bring  order  into  the  chaos 
of  Hebrew  chronology  during  the  most  important 
period  of  the  nation's  existence. 

When  we  think  of  these  and  other  gains,  not 
the  least  of  which  is  the  discovery  of  the  con- 
temporaneous documents,  the  absence  of  which 
was  at  one  time  made  the  basis  for  the  rejection 
of  many  statements  found  exclusively  in  the  Old 


151  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Testament,  we  may  gratefully  receive  this  new 
light  and  rejoice  in  the  advance  in  Bible  knowledge 
made  possible  through  the  excavations.  What, 
now,  is  the  general  bearing  of  these  discoveries 
on  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Old  Testament? 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
for  many  periods  of  Hebrew  history  we  are  still 
entirely  dependent  on  the  Old  Testament  for 
direct  information.  For  example.  Professor  Clay's 
claim  concerning  the  patriarchal  age,  that  "the 
increase  of  knowledge  gained  through  the  inscrip- 
tions of  this  period  has  in  every  instance  dissolved 
conclusions  arrived  at  by  those  critics  who  main- 
tain that  the  patriarchs  are  not  to  be  regarded 
as  historical, "(^0  is  not  justified  by  the  facts. 
In  reality,  no  incident  in  the  patriarchal  story  is 
referred  to  in  any  of  the  inscriptions  read  thus 
far.  On  the  other  hand,  the  age  of  the  patriarchs 
has  been  wonderfully  illuminated.  "Formerly  the 
world  in  which  the  patriarchs  moved  seemed  to 
be  almost  empty;  now  we  see  it  filled  with  em- 
bjissics,  armies,  busy  cities,  and  long  lines  of 
traders  passing  to  and  fro  between  one  center  of 
civilization  and  another;  but  amid  all  that  crowded 
life  we  peer  in  vain  for  any  trace  of  the  fathers  of 
the  Hebrews;  we  listen  in  vain  for  any  mention 
of  their  names;  this  is  the  whole  change  archaeology 
has  wrought:  it  has  given  us  an  atmos[)here  and 
a   background   for   the   stories   of  Genesis;   it   is 


'rm^:  old  testament  155 

unable  to  reCcall  or  certify  their  heroes. "(")  All 
that  can  be  said  in  this,  as  in  other  cases,  is,  that 
archaeology,  by  furnishing  a  broad  historical  back- 
ground, has  established  the  possibility  of  the 
principal  events  recorded  in  the  biblical  narratives 
being  correct.  It  is  silent  concerning  the  events 
themselves,  and,  therefore,  neither  confirms  nor 
discredits  them. 

A  few  cases  there  are,  especially  in  connection 
with  questions  of  chronology,  where  archseology 
has  modified  and  corrected  biblical  statements. 
According  to  the  inscriptions  of  Tiglath-pileser, 
for  example,  Menahem  of  Israel  paid  tribute  to 
the  Assyrian  king  in  B.  C.  738,  and  there  is  reason 
for  believing  that  this  tribute  was  paid  near  the 
beginning  of  Menahem's  reign  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  the  good  will  of  Assyria.  In  734  or  733 
Pekah  is  said  to  have  been  slain  and  to  have 
been  succeeded  by  Hoshea.  Now,  according  to  the 
Old  Testament,  Menahem  reigned  ten  years;  his 
son,  Pekahiah,  two  years,  and  Pekah  twenty 
years,  a  total  of  thirty-two  years.  Even  if  we 
assume  that  the  tribute  was  paid  by  Menahem 
during  his  last  year — which  is  not  at  all  likely — 
there  would  remain  twenty-two  years  to  be  pro- 
vided for  between  738  and  734  or  733.  Evidently, 
the  Old  Testament  figures  are  too  high.  A 
similar  case  is  found  in  connection  with  events 
that  took  place  only  a  few  years  later.     In  2  Kings 


15n  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

IS.  10  the  statement  is  found  that  Samaria  was 
taken  in  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah,  king  of 
Judah.  Then,  verse  13  states  that  in  the  four- 
teenth year  of  Hezekiah,  Sennacherib,  king  of 
Assyria,  came  against  Jerusalem.  The  date  of  the 
capture  of  Samaria  is  definitely  fixed  by  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions.  The  city  fell  either  in  the 
closing  days  of  B.  C.  722  or  the  opening  days  of 
B.  C.  721.  Assuming  that  it  was  722,  the  four- 
teenth year  of  Hezekiah  would  be  714.  But 
Sennacherib  did  not  become  king  until  705,  and 
the  attack  upon  Jerusalem  was  not  made  until 
701.  Here,  again,  the  biblical  account  seems  to 
be  inaccurate. 

In  many  other  cases,  however,  remarkable  con- 
firmations are  seen.  There  are  many  persons  and 
events  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  which 
are  referred  to  also  in  the  inscriptions.  Think  of 
the  long  list  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  kings 
named  in  the  Old  Testament;  Amraphel,  king  of 
Shinar,  at  one  time  considered  a  mythical  figure, 
is  showTi  to  have  been  one  of  the  greatest  generals, 
wisest  administrators,  and  fairest  lawgivers  among 
the  early  kings  of  Babylon.  Sargon,  whose  very 
existence  was  once  doubted,  has  in  defiance  risen 
from  the  dust.  In  these  and  numerous  other  cases, 
especially  from  the  ninth  century  onward — as 
may  be  seen  from  a  comparison  of  the  inscriptions 
quoted  above  with  the  corresponding  portions  of 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  157 

the  Old  Testament — the  archaeological  records 
furnish  striking  confirmations  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment narratives.  To  sum  up  this  entire  inquiry: 
It  must  be  apparent  to  every  unbiased  student 
that  the  monuments,  when  read  intelligently, 
neither  set  aside  nor  discredit  the  Old  Testament 
documents.  On  the  contrary,  they  prove  their 
substantial  accuracy.  They  may  at  times  modify 
them,  especially  in  questions  of  chronology;  but 
they  more  frequently  corroborate  than  impugn; 
thus  they  offer  their  services  not  as  a  substitute 
but  as  a  supplement,  by  the  aid  of  which  we  may 
study  from  without  the  history  of  the  Hebrew 
people. 

NOTES  ON  CHAPTER  IV 

(')  An  excellent  account  of  the  explorations  and  excava- 
tions in  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  and  of  the  decipher- 
ment of  the  inscriptions  is  found  in  R.  W.  Rogers, 
A  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  Vol.  I,  Chapters 
I — Vni;  compare  also  H.  V.  Hilprecht,  Explora- 
tions in  Bible  Lands  during  the  Nineteenth  Centurj', 
Part  I. 

C)  Preliminary  reports  of  the  results  of  the  German 
excavations  are  given  from  time  to  time  in  the 
Mitteilungen  der  Deutschen  Orient  Gesellschaft. 

(')  G.  Steindorff,  Excavations  in  Egypt,  in  H.  V.  Hil- 
precht, Explorations  in  Bible  Lands,  pp.  623-690. 

(*)  Opening  words  of  I.  Benzinger,  Researches  in  Pales- 
tine, in  Hilprecht,  Explorations,  pp.  579-622.  A 
very  complete  discussion  of  exjjlorations  and  exca- 
vations in  Palestine  may  be  found  in  F.  Jones  Bliss, 
Development  of  Palestine  Exploration.     The  prog- 


158  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

ress  of  the  excavations  is  reported  in  the  Quarterly 
Statement  of  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund. 

C)  Opening   words   of   the   first   lecture  on    "Babel   and 
Bible." 

(')  S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  xlviii. 

(')  A.  T.  Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from  Babel, 
Chapter  XL 

(«)  The  Chronology  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  97. 

(")  Egypt  and  Israel,  p.  35.    Breasted  also  seems  to  think 
that  the  Israelites  defeated  by  Merneptah  had  no 
direct  connection  with  those  who  suffered  in  Egypt, 
A  History  of  Egypt,  p.  466;  compare  p.  410. 
("»)  The  Expositor,  1908,  p.  199. 
(")  J.  C.  Ball,  Light  from  the  East,  pp.  131,  132. 
CO  W.  H.  Bennett,  The  Moabite  Stone;  Hastings,  Dic- 

tionarj^  of  the  Bible,  art.,  "Moab,  Moabites." 
(")  Most  of  the  inscriptions  from  this  period  on  are  found 
in  D.  G.  Hogarth,  Authority  and  Archseology, 
Part  1 — Hebrew  Authority,  by  S.  R.  Driver.  See 
also  T.  G.  Pinches,  ,  The  Old  Testament  in  the 
Light  of  the  Historical  Records  and  Legends  of 
Assj'ria  and  Babylonia;  A.  T.  Clay,  Light  on  the 
Old  Testament  from  Babel;  A.  Jeremias,  The  Old 
Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Ancient  Orient;  R.  F. 
Harper,  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Literature;  S.  R. 
Driver,  Modern  Research  as  Illustrating  the  Bible. 
The  most  recent  and  most  complete  collection  of 
cuneiform  inscriptions  throwing  light  on  Old  Testa- 
ment religion  and  history  is  contained  in  R.  W. 
Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels  to  the  Old  Testament, 
which  appeared  after  this  book  had  gone  to  press. 
(")  Formerly     called     Shalmaneser     II;    see    Expository 

Times,  February,  1912,  p.  238. 
(")  A  translation  of  the  entire  inscription  bj'  R.  W.  Rogers 
ia  found  in  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  Vol.  VI, 
pp.  SOff.    These  Records  of  the  Past  contain  transla- 
tions of  the  more  important  ancient  inscriptions. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  150 

(")  The  most  important  of  these  papyri  is  translated  in 
the  Biblical  World,  June,  1908,  pp.  448ff. 

(")  Francis  Brown,  Assyriology — Its  Use  and  Abuse  in 
Old  Testament  Study,  p.  3. 

(")  R.  W.  Rogers,  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
Vol.  II,  p.  80. 

('•)  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  Vol.  I,  col.  792,  Note. 

(^°)  E.  W.  Barnes,  The  First  Book  of  Kings,  p.  xxxiii. 

(")  A.  T.  Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from  Babel, 
p.  143. 

(")  S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  liii,  quoted  in 
part  from  G.  A.  Smith,  Modern  Criticism  and  the 
Preaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  101. 


IGO  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Old  Testament  and  Comparative 
Religion 

The  present  is  an  era  of  comparative  study. 
We  no  longer  study  subjects  by  themselves,  but 
compare  them  with  correlated  experiences  and 
phenomena.  "In  the  sphere  of  language  study 
we  have  the  science  of  comparative  philology. 
Language  is  compared  with  language.  By  means 
of  this  comparison  we  have  found  that  there  are 
groups  of  languages  closely  related  to  one  another; 
and,  comparing  these  groups  with  one  another, 
we  have  discovered  certain  universal  laws  of 
language.  Comparing  further  the  languages  within 
each  group,  we  ascertain  the  laws  common  to 
that  group.  By  such  comparison  a  flood  of  light 
has  been  thrown  on  language.  We  know  Greek 
and  Latin  and  Hebrew  to-day  as  our  predecessors 
did  not  know  them."(0  The  same  principle  of 
comparison  is  now  applied  to  the  study  of  history, 
of  literature,  of  philosophy,  of  ethics,  and  of 
religion,  including  the  literature  and  religion  of 
the  Hebrews.  Men  are  laying  to-day  the  entire 
Hebrew  literature,  history,  and  religion  alongside 
of  the  literatures,  histories,  and  religions  of  other 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IGl 

nations,  testing  them  by  the  same  methods  and 
applying  to  them  the  same  rules. 

What  should  be  the  attitude  of  the  Christian 
toward  this  method  of  study?  When  the  science 
of  comparative  philology  first  asserted  itself  many 
good  Christians  set  themselves  against  it,  because 
one  of  its  claims  was  that  Hebrew  is  not  the 
original  language  given  by  God  to  men.  Com- 
parative philology  has  won  its  way,  and  Bible 
students  are  truly  grateful  for  the  light  it  has 
shed  upon  sacred  scripture.  When  the  compar- 
ative study  of  the  Scriptures  was  first  advocated 
there  were  many  timid  souls  who  felt  that  this 
method  of  study  was  an  attack  upon  the  Bible, 
which  could  only  issue  in  such  an  overturning  of 
belief  that  the  Church  would  remain  helpless  with 
a  worthless  Bible.  Hence  they  set  themselves 
with  all  their  might  against  the  new  study  as  an 
enemy  of  Christianity.  Is  this  the  proper  attitude? 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  the 
Bible  has  withstood  all  attacks  for  thousands  of 
years.  Its  great  river  of  truth  has  flowed  serenely 
on,  watering  the  whole  earth  with  its  life-giving 
streams,  and  refusing  to  be  dammed  up  by  any 
foe.  Surely,  history  teaches  that  there  need  be 
no  fear  that  any  new  method  of  study  will  bring 
about  an  end  of  the  Bible's  reign.  On  the  other 
hand,  history  teaches  the  folly  of  resisting  the 
progress  of  science  along  any  line  of  investigation. 


162  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

True  science  will  win  its  way  just  as  surely  as 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible  will  win  its  way  into  the 
hearts  of  men.  Hence  it  would  seem  the  part  of 
wisdom  to  encourage  rather  than  to  discourage 
the  efforts  of  the  comparative  student  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  cannot  do  anything  else 
unless  we  would  stultify  ourselves.  We  have  said 
to  the  adherents  of  every  other  religion:  ''You  say 
your  sacred  books  are  divine,  prove  it;  lay  your 
books  open  before  the- jury  of  the  world,  let  the 
critics  scrutinize  them,  analyze  them,  criticize 
them,  according  to  the  canons  of  modern  criticism 
by  which  they  criticize  all  books."  And  can  we 
refuse  to  open  our  Bible  before  the  jury  of  the 
world  and  bid  it  scrutinize,  analyze,  and  criticize 
it  according  to  the  same  canons  which  it  applies 
to  the  Veda,  the  Koran,  and  other  so-called  holy 
books?  Would  such  an  attitude  be  fair?  If  we 
believe  that  the  Bible  is  different  from  the  sacred 
books  of  other  nations,  that  it  stands  on  a  far 
higher  plane,  unique,  needing  no  concealment  and 
no  bolstering  up  with  traditions  and  doctrines — 
if  that  is  our  faith,  then  let  us  lay  it  down  open 
before  the  world  and  challenge  men  to  read  it, 
study  it,  and  compare  it  with  all  the  sacred  lit- 
eratures of  the  world.  The  man  who  really  be- 
lieves in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  ought  not  to 
be  afraid  of  such  a  test.     He  may  rest  assured 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  1G.3 

that  the  comparative  study  of  bibhcal  literature 
and  biblical  religion  will  prove  one  of  the  things 
that  work  together  for  good  to  all  those  who  have 
a  living  faith  in  God. 

An  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  subject  of  this 
chapter  would  involve  a  study  of  all  the  great 
historical  religions,  known  better  to-day  than  ever 
before,  and  a  comparison  of  them  with  the  religion 
of  the  Old  Testament.  This,  however,  could  not 
be  done  satisfactorily  within  the  limits  of  a  single 
chapter.  It  seems,  therefore,  advisable  to  confine 
the  investigation  to  the  religious  beliefs,  practices, 
and  institutions  of  the  nations  with  whom  the 
Ilebnjws  came  into  more  or  less  close  contact, 
such  as  the  Babylonians,  Assyrians,  and  Egyptians. 
Political  contact,  which  was  common  between 
these  nations  and  the  Hebrews,  might  furnish 
occasions  for  exerting  influence  in  the  realms  of 
religion,  law,  and  other  elements  of  civilization. 
"When  alien  races  and  diverse  faiths  confronted 
each  other  it  might  not  always  be  the  cause  of 
war,  but  it  was  always  the  occasion  of  psychical 
conflict. "(^)  Since  the  Imowledge  of  the  religions 
of  the  nations  named  has  been  supplied  very 
largely  through  archaeological  labors,  this  inquiry 
is  simply  one  phase  of  the  broader  question  as 
to  the  bearing  of  archaeology  upon  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; more  especially,  the  bearing  of  the  archaeo- 
logical material  of  a  religious  and  ethical  nature 


164  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

upon  tlie  uniqueness  and  permanent  significance 
of  the  („)ld  Testament  religion. 

The  imjiortance  of  this  study  is  suggested  in 
the  following  quotation  from  a  prominent  Assyriol- 
ogist,  Hugo  Winckler:  "We  come  in  the  end  to 
this,  that  we  can  distinguish  only  two  views  of 
the  world  which  the  human  race  has  known  in 
its  historical  development:  the  old  Babylonian, 
and  the  modern  empirical  naturalistic,  which  is 
still  in  process  of  development  and  is  yet  struggling 
with  the  old  one  in  many  departments  of  life."(^) 
To  avoid  misunderstanding  respecting  the  extent 
of  the  Babylonian  influence,  he  adds,  'The  view 
of  the  world  and  religion  are  one  for  the  ancient 
Oriental. "(^)  In  this  statement  Winckler  robs  the 
Old  Testament  religion  of  all  originality;  he  con- 
siders it  simply  a  natural  development  of  the 
Babylonian  religion.  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  in  his 
lectures  on  "Babel  and  Bible,"('')  expresses  the 
same  idea  in  a  slightly  modified  form  and  attempts 
to  show  the  predominance  of  Babylonian  thought 
in  the  Hebrew  conception  of  the  origin  of  the 
world,  the  Fall,  the  Flood,  life  after  death,  angels, 
demons,  the  devil,  the  Sabbath,  a  large  part  of 
the  sacrificial  cult,  the  directions  concerning  the 
priesthood,  the  name  and  worship  of  Jehovah,  and 
even  in  the  monotheistic  conception  of  Deity. 
How  much  truth  is  there  in  these  claims?  Or,  to 
put  the  question  in  another  form,  If  the  religious 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  1G5 

ideas  expressed  in  the  Old  Testament  have  parallels 
among  nations  commonly  called  heathen,  and  if 
these  extra-biblical  ideas  cannot  be  explained  as 
dependent  on  the  Bible,  docs  it  follow  that  the 
ideas  of  the  Bible  arc  appropriated  from  these 
nations,  and  if  so,  what  becomes  of  the  unique- 
ness, the  sacredness,  the  inspiration  of  the  Old 
Testament?  In  order  to  answer  the  question 
adequately  it  is  necessary  to  consider  in  detail 
the  most  important  i)ha,ses  of  the  religious 
iileas  of  the  Hebrews  on  the  one  hand,  and  of 
the  nations  with  whom  the  Hebrews  came  in 
contact  on  the  other. 

Fundamental  to  all  religious  thinking  is  the  con- 
cei)tion  of  Deity.  The  origm  of  the  Babylonian 
conception  of  Deity,  which  shows  more  striking 
similarities  to  the  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament 
than  do  the  concept  icnis  of  the  other  nations  above 
mentioned,  belongs  to  a  period  of  which  little  or 
nothing  is  known.  But  there  are  indications  that 
a  fundamental  aspect  of  the  earliest  religion  of 
the  country  was  animism,  that  is,  the  belief  that 
every  object  was  possessed  and  animated  by  a 
spirit.  "Life  was  the  only  force  known  to  man 
which  explained  motion,  and,  conversely,  motion 
was  the  sign  and  manifestation  of  life.  The 
arrow  which  sped  through  the  air,  or  the  rock 
which  fell  from  the  cliff,  did  so  in  virtue  of  their 
possessing   life,   or   because   the   motive   force   of 


IGG  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

life  lay  in  some  way  or  other  behind  them.  The 
stars,  which  slowly  moved  through  the  sky,  and 
the  sun,  which  rose  and  set  day  by  day,  were 
living  beings.  It  was  life  which  gave  them  the 
power  of  movement  as  it  gave  the  power  of  move- 
ment to  man  himself,  and  the  animals  by  whom 
he  was  surrounded. "(■'^)  Besides  this  belief  in 
animism,  the  Babylonian  religion  shows  evidences 
of  a  belief  in  ghosts  that  were  related  to  the 
world  of  the  dead.  These  ghosts  were  thought  to 
exercise  an  evil  influence  upon  men  and  could 
be  cast  out  only  by  the  use  of  incantations. 

But,  while  these  elements  belonged  to  the  early 
religion,  Baliylonian  religion  as  it  actually  meets 
us  even  in  the  earliest  inscriptions  has  reached  a 
higher  stage  of  development.  There  appear  many 
local  deities;  every  center  of  human  habitation 
had  its  special  patron  deity;  for  example,  Babylon 
was  the  city  of  Marduk;  Nippur,  of  Enhl;  Ur,  of 
Sin;  Sippara,  of  Shamash;  Cuthah,  of  Nergal; 
Asshur,  of  Ashur;  etc.  These  deities  are  usually 
associated  with  natural  phenomena;  foremost 
among  them  stand  the  sun  and  the  moon;  but  by 
the  side  of  these  many  other  natural  objects  or 
forces  were  personifuHl  and  deified. 

It  is  probable  that  in  the  begmning,  as  the 
result  of  limited  observation  and  speculation,  the 
number  of  gods  in  the  Babylonian  pantheon  was 
relatively  small.     However,  in  the  course  of  time, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  167 

tlioy  became  greatly  luultiplied  as  the  result  of 
a  wider  observation  of  the  phenomena  of  nature 
political  changes,  and  theological  speculation. 
Over  against  this  tendency  to  multiply  deities 
there  shows  itself,  in  the  course  of  the  centuries, 
a  tendency  to  diminish  the  number  of  gods,  and 
in  the  end  comparatively  few  remain,  until  in 
the  late  Babylonian  period  the  worship  seems  to 
have  been  confined  chiefly  to  Marduk,  Nabu,  Sin, 
Shamash,  and  Ishtar.  Some  of  the  great  thinkers 
of  Babylonia  seem  to  have  gone  even  so  far  as 
to  consider  the  various  deities  manifestation  of 
the  one  god  Marduk.  There  is  in  existence  a 
tabk^t  of  the  Neo-Babylonian  period  which  states 
that  Marduk  is  called  Ninib  as  the  possessor  of 
power,  Nergal  as  lord  of  battle,  Bel  as  possessor 
of  dominion,  Nabu  as  lord  of  business.  Sin  as  the 
illuminator  of  the  night,  Shamash  as  the  lortl  of 
right,  Adtlu  as  the  lord  of  rain,  etc.(")  It  is  seen, 
then,  that  monotheistic  tendencies  are  not  absent 
from  the  Babylonian  religion.  But  they  never  go 
beyond  the  realm  of  speculation.  'The  Baby- 
lonians, with  all  their  wonderful  gifts,  were  never 
able  to  conceive  of  one  god,  of  one  god  alone, 
of  one  god  whose  very  existence  makes  logically 
impossible  the  existence  of  any  other  deity. 
Monotheism  transcends  the  spiritual  grasp  of  the 
Babylonian  mind."(^)  In  the  words  of  Delitzsch, 
"Notwithstanding  all  this,  however,  and  despite 


1(>S  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

the  fact  tliat  many  liberal  and  enlightened  minds 
openly  advocated  the  doctrine  that  Nergal  and 
Nobo,  that  the  moon-god  antl  the  sun-god,  the 
god  of  thunder,  Ramman,  and  all  the  rest  of  the 
Babylonian  pantheon,  were  one  in  Marduk,  the 
god  of  light,  still  polytheism,  gross  polytheism, 
remained  for  three  thousand  years  the  Babylonian 
state  religion — a  sad  and  significant  warning  against 
(lie  indolence  of  men  and  races  in  matters  of 
r(>ligion,  and  against  the  colossal  power  which  may 
be  ac(iuired  by  a  strongly  organized  priesthood 
based  upon  it."(') 

Even  the  most  spiritual  expressions  of  the 
Babylonian  religion,  the  so-called  penitential 
j)salms,  bear  witness  to  the  fact  that  the  writers 
continued  to  worship  many  deities.  In  one  of 
the  most  spiritual  of  these  psalms,  the  psalmist 
prays: 

That  the  heart  anger  of  my  lord  be  appeased, 

A  god  unknown  to  me  be  appeased, 

A  goddess  unknown  to  me  be  appeased, 

A  known  and  unknown  god  be  appeased, 

A  known  and  unknown  goddess  be  appeased, 

That  the  heart  of  my  god  be  appeased, 

The  heart  of  my  goddess  be  appeased, 

God  and  goddess,  known  and  unknown,  be  appeased.  (') 

Some  of  the  hymns  and  prayers  addressed  to  certain 
deities  read  almost  as  if  the  authors  were  monothe- 
ists.  But  this  is  due  simply  to  the  fact  that  just 
at  the  time  they  are  interested  in  the  power  or 


TIIH  OLD  TESTAMENT  169 

splendor  or  favor  of  a  specific  deity.  Again  and 
again  the  fact  that  they  beheve  in  the  existence 
of  other  deities,  and  in  tlieir  duty  to  pay  homage 
to  diffcr(!nt  deities,  crops  out.  At  no  period  of 
the  reUgious  history  of  liabylonia  is  there  any 
indication  of  a  clear  and  well-defined  monotheism. 

In  Egypt  also  a  tendency  toward  monotheism 
manifested  itself,  especially  during  the  reign  of 
Amenophis  IV,  soon  after  B.  C.  1400, ('")  that  is, 
during  the  pcM'iod  when  the  Hebrews  were  in 
Egypt.  He  tried  to  do  away  with  the  worship 
of  many  deities  antl  to  establish  as  the  one  supreme 
deity  the  orb  of  the  sun;  but  after  the  death  of 
Amenophis,  who  was  considered  a  heretic,  the  new 
cult  disappeared  without  exerting  any  noticeable 
influence  on  h^gyptian  religion.  There  certainly 
is  no  cvid(>nce  that  either  the  Babylonian  or  the 
Egyptian  monotheistic  tendencies  influenced  in 
any  direct  way  the  development  of  Israel's  religion. 

Turning  now  to  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament, 
we  soon  discover  that  Hebrew  religion,  including 
the  conception  of  Deity,  passed  through  various 
stages  of  devel(){)ment,  the  earliest  of  these  be- 
longing to  the  period  before  Moses.  The  first 
thing  to  be  noted  about  this  period  is  that,  in 
spite  of  the  close  relation  of  the  ancient  Hebrews 
with  Babylon,  the  early  Hebrew  conception  of 
Deity  does  not  seem  to  have  been  influenced  in 
any  marked  manner  by  that  of  Babylonia;  nor 


170  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

is  there  any  indication  of  I^]gyptian  influence.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  oldest  Hebrew  conceptions 
show  marked  similarities  with  the  religion  of  their 
nomadic  neighbors,  as  reflected,  for  example,  in 
the  oldest  traditions  of  the  Arab  tribes.  This  does 
not  mean  that  an  indirect  influence  may  not  have 
been  exerted  by  Babylon;  indeed,  the  absence  of 
such  influence  would  be  very  strange  in  view  of 
the  fact  that,  according  to  Hebrew  tradition,  the 
truth  of  which  cannot  be  doubted,  the  ancestors 
of  the  Hebrews  came  from  Babylonia,  from  the 
city  of  Ur,  the  principal  center  of  the  worship  of 
the  Babylonian  moon -god.  Sin. 

The  results  of  modern  investigations  into  the 
nature  of  early  Hebrew  religion  may  be  briefly 
stated  as  follows:  Like  the  early  Babylonian  re- 
ligion, the  religion  of  Israel  passed  through  a 
stage  of  animism.  In  one  form  this  is  the  belief 
in  the  activity  of  tlie  spirits  of  recently  deceased 
relatives.  But  this  becomes  a  religion  only  when 
it  leads  to  the  worship  of  the  departed,  that  is, 
ancestor  worship,  of  which  there  is  no  definite 
indication  in  the  biblical  material  at  our  com- 
mand. But  there  is  a  form  of  animism  of  which 
there  are  traces  in  Israel  as  in  Babylonia,  namely, 
the  worship  of  spirits  that  were  believed  to  be  the 
inhabitants  and  possessors  of  certain  objects  and 
places,  like  trees,  stones,  springs,  which  thereby 
assumed    a   sacred    character.    To   this   form    of 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  171 

religion  the  name  "polydcnionisin,"  which  means 
the  worship  of  many  demons,  is  ordinarily  given. 
Demon,  however,  is  to  be  understood  here,  not 
in  the  sense  of  evil  spirit,  but  simply  a  divine 
being  of  an  inferior  order.  As  illustrations  of  this 
belief,  attention  may  be  called  to  the  sacred  stone. 
Bethel,  which  gave  the  locality  its  name,  "House 
of  God"  (Gen.  28.  19),  or  to  the  sacred  oracular 
tree  at  Shechem  (Gen.  12.  6;  Deut.  11.  30),  or  to 
the  sacred  wells  at  Kadesh  (Gen.  14.  7)  and 
Beersheba  (Gen.  21.  28-33).  In  general,  it  may 
be  said  that  during  the  pre-Mosaic  period  the 
religion  of  Israel,  whatever  may  have  been  true  of 
isolated  individuals,  was  not  essentially  different 
from  the  religious  conceptions  of  the  people  with 
which  we  have  become  better  acquainted  through 
modem  exploration  and  excavation. (") 

Another  and  very  difTerent  conception  appears 
from  the  time  of  the  exodus  on.  The  most 
striking  feature  of  this  new  conception  is  that  the 
Israelites  now  worship  one  God,  whom  they  con- 
sider their  o^^^l  peculiar  Deity,  while  they  look 
upon  themselves  as  his  own  peculiar  people.  True, 
the  earlier  conceptions  did  not  disappear  entirely 
or  immediately;  but  for  the  religious  leaders 
there  was  but  one  God  who  had  a  right  to  demand 
Israel's  loyalty.  Jehovah,  or  Yahweh,  w^as  the 
name  of  this  God,  and  the  religious  watchword 
was,  "Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel;  Israel  the  people 


11-2  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

of  Jehovah."  Now  archaeology  has  shown  the 
nanio  "Yahweh"  to  have  been  used  as  a  divine 
name  long  before  the  time  of  the  exodus;  but 
archaeology  has  also  shown  that  the  conception 
of  the  nature  and  character  of  Yahweh  held  by 
the  religious  leaders  of  the  Hebrews  from  the 
time  of  Moses  on  is  peculiar  to  them.  Says  R.  W. 
Rogers,  "There  can,  therefore,  be  no  escape  from 
the  conclusion  that  the  divine  name  'Yahweh*  is 
not  a  peculiar  possession  of  the  Hebrews. "C^) 
Then  he  continues:  "At  first  sight  this  may  seem 
like  a  startling  robbery  of  Israel,  this  taking  away 
from  her  the  divine  name  'Yahweh'  as  an  exclusive 
possession,  but  it  is  not  so.  Yahweh  himself  is 
not  taken  away:  he  remains  the  priceless  possession, 
the  chief  glory  of  Israel.  It  is  only  the  name  that 
is  shown  to  be  widespread.  And  the  name  matters 
little.  The  great  question  is,  What  does  this 
name  convey?  What  is  its  theological  content? 
The  name  came  to  Israeli  from  the  outside;  but 
into  that  vessel  a  long  line  of  prophets  from  Moses 
onward  poured  such  a  flood  of  attributes  as  never 
a  priest  in  all  western  Asia  from  Babylonia  to 
the  sea  ever  dreamed  of  in  his  highest  moments 
of  spiritual  insight.  In  this  name  and  through 
Israel's  history  God  chose  to  reveal  himself  to 
Israel,  and  by  Israel  to  the  world.  Therein  lies 
the  supreme  and  lonesome  superiority  of  Israel 
over  Babylonia.  "(*^) 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  173 

Archeology  has  revealed  the  pantheon  of  Baby- 
lonia and  Assyria;  the  inscriptions  have  also  set 
in  a  clear  light  the  nature  and  character  of  the 
gods  as  conceived  by  their  worshipers.  For  ex- 
ample, the  gods  are  looked  upon  as  a  part  of 
the  process  of  creation,  as  may  be  seen  from  the 
opening  lines  of  the  story  of  Creation :(") 

When  no  one  of  the  gods  had  been  called  into  being, 
And  none  bore  a  name,  and  no  destinies  were  fixed. 
Then  were  created  the  gods  in  the  midst  of  heaven. 

An  idea  of  the  character  of  these  deities  may  be 
gathered  from  the  description  of  a  heavenly  ban- 
quet scene  in  the  same  poem : 

They  made  ready  the  feast,  at  the  banquet  [they  sat], 

They  ate  bread,  they  mingled  the  wine. 

The  sweet  drink  made  them  drunken     .     . 

By  drinking  they  were  drunken,  their  bodies  were  filled. 

They  shouted  aloud,  their  heart  was  exalted, 

Then  for  Marduk,  their  avenger,  did  they  decree  destiny. 

Certainly,  not  all  the  religious  thinkers  of  Baby- 
lonia held  these  low  conceptions.  In  some  of 
their  prayers  and  hymns  they  rise  to  lofty  spiritual 
and  ethical  conceptions  which  compare  quite 
favorably  with  expressions  found  in  the  Old 
Testament.  In  a  hynm  addressed  to  Shamash, 
the  sun-god,  are  foimd  these  lines: 

Who  plans  evil — his  horn  thou  dost  destroy, 
Whoever  in  fixing  boundaries  annuls  rights. 
The  unjust  judge  thou  restrainest  with  force. 


174  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Whoever  accepts  a  bribe,  who  does  not  judge  justly— on  him 

thou  imposcst  sin. 
But  he  who  docs  not  accept  a  bribe,  who  has  a  care  for  the 

oppressed, 
To  him  Shamash  is  gracious,  his  hfe  he  prolongs. 
The  judge  who  renders  a  just  decision 
Shall  end  in  a  palace,  the  place  of  princes  shall  be  his  dwelling. 

The  seed  of  those  who  act  unjustly  shall  not  flourish. 
^\'hat  their  mouth  declares  in  thy  presence 
Thou  shalt  burn  it  up,  what  they  purpose  wilt  thou  annul. 
Thou  knowest  their  transgressions;  the  declaration  of  the 

wicked  thou  dost  cast  aside. 
Every  one  wherever  he  may  be  is  in  thy  care. 
Thou  directest  their  judgments,   the  imprisoned  dost  thou 

hberate. 
Thou  hearest,  O  Shamash,  petition,  prayer,  and  appeal, 
Humihty,  prostration,  petitioning,  and  reverence. 
With  loud  voice  the  unfortunate  one  cries  to  thee. 
The  weak,  the  exhausted,  the  oppressed,  the  lowly, 
Mother,  wife,  maid  appeal  to  thee, 
He  who  is  removed  from  his  family,  he  that  dwelleth  far  from 

his  city.  ("J 

Far  be  it  from  the  writer  to  rob  the  rehgion  of 
Babylonia  of  any  of  its  glory.  Nevertheless,  he 
ventures  to  assert  without  any  fear  of  contradic- 
tion that  we  may  search  the  pantheon  of  Babylon, 
from  one  end  to  the  other,  and  we  shall  not  find 
one  god  who  in  nature  and  character  can  compare 
with  the  Jehovah  of  Israel  as  proclaimed  by  the 
great  prophets  and  glorified  by  the  sweet  singers 
of  the  nation,  a  God  ''merciful  and  gracious,  slow 
to  anger,  and  abundant  in  loving-kindness  and 
truth."     We   may  well   speak  of  a   "great   gulf. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  175 

which  is  fixed  between  primitive  Semitic  concep- 
tions of  God  and  the  noble  spiritual  views  of  him 
set  forth  under  divine  illumination  by  Isaiah."('") 
It  is  due  to  this  fundamental  difference  in  the 
conception  of  the  nature  and  character  of  Deity 
that  the  religion  of  Israel  became  "a  living  and 
ethical  power,  growing  and  increasing  until  Jesus, 
greatest  of  the  prophets,  completed  the  message 
of  his  predecessors,"  and  Christianity  was  born. 

From  the  conception  of  Deity  we  may  pass 
to  a  brief  consideration  of  religious  institutions  and 
beliefs.  One  of  the  most  important  results  of 
recent  archaeological  discoveries  has  been  to  show^ 
that  many  of  the  religious  rites,  customs,  and 
institutions  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  as  also  of 
Egypt,  resemble  closely  those  assigned  in  the 
Old  Testament  to  the  Hebrews.  This  cannot 
appear  strange  when  we  remember  that  Israel 
was  a  branch  of  the  great  Semitic  race,  which 
w^as,  at  the  time  of  its  separation  from  the  common 
stock,  in  possession  of  many  of  the  connnon 
Semitic  notions  and  practices.  It  would  have 
been  impossible  to  rid  the  Israelite  consciousness 
of  all  of  these;  therefore  the  religious  leaders  of 
the  Hebrews  took  the  better  way  of  retaining 
the  familiar  forms  and  pouring  into  them  a  new, 
higher,  and  more  spiritual  significance. 

One  of  the  earliest  religious  institutions  recog- 
nized in  the  Old  Testament  is  the  Sabbath.    The 


176  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

very  fact  that  it  is  mentioned  in  the  story  of 
creation  shows  that,  whatever  the  reason  for  its 
observance  among  the  Hebrews,  it  was  recognized 
as  a  very  ancient  institution.  Has  archaeology 
thrown  any  light  on  the  origin  of  the  Sabbath 
day?('")  In  his  first  lecture  on  "Babel  and  Bible," 
Delitzsch  answers  the  question  in  these  words: 
"There  can  therefore  be  scarcely  the  shadow  of 
a  doubt  that  in  the  last  resort  we  are  indebted 
to  this  ancient  nation  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates 
and  the  Tigris  for  the  plenitude  of  blessings  that 
flows  from  our  day  of  Sabbath,  or  Sunday,  rest."(^^) 
This  statement  was  soon  criticized,  because  it 
seemed  to  give  too  much  credit  to  the  Babylonians, 
and  Delitzsch  later  modified  the  statement  and 
claimed,  simply,  that  the  Hebrew  Sabbath  ul- 
timately is  rooted  in  a  Babylonian  institution. (***) 
No  exception  can  be  taken  to  this  putting  of  the 
claim. 

What  are  the  facts  in  the  case?  (1)  The  Baby- 
lonians observed  in  a  peculiar  way  the  seventh, 
fourteenth,  twenty-first,  and  twenty-eighth  days 
of  the  month,  that  is,  the  days  on  which  the 
moon  entered  a  new  phase.  They  also  observed 
the  nineteenth  day  of  the  month,  which  was  the 
forty-ninth  day  from  the  beginning  of  the  preced- 
ing month.  These  days  were  considered  unlucky 
days,  on  which  certain  actions  had  to  be  avoided, 
at  least  by  important  personages,  like  the  king, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  177 

priest,  and  physician.  The  prohibition  reads:  "The 
shepherd  (king)  of  the  great  nations  shall  not  eat 
roasted  nor  smoked  meat,  not  change  his  garment, 
not  put  on  white  raiment,  not  offer  sacrifice;  the 
king  shall  not  mount  his  chariot,  as  ruler  not 
pronounce  judgment;  the  priest  shall  not  give 
oracles  in  the  secret  place;  the  physician  shall 
not  lay  his  hand  on  the  sick,  the  day  being  in- 
auspicious for  any  affair  whatever."  The  Baby- 
lonians evidently  observed  these  days  by  at  least 
partial  cessation  of  work,  because  nothing  would 
prosper  anyway  on  those  days.  In  contrast,  it 
may  be  well  to  notice  that  in  the  Sabbath  ob- 
servance among  the  early  Hebrews  the  human- 
itarian element  played  a  prominent  part.  (2)  The 
name  Sha-bat-tu  has  been  found  in  the  inscriptions 
as  an  interpretation  of  the  phrase,  U7n  nuh  lihhi, 
which  means,  a  day  for  appeasing  the  heart  (of 
the  deity).  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the 
Babylonian  Sabbath  was  intended  to  be  a  day 
of  atonement  or  supplication,  which  might  imply 
cessation  of  ordinary  labor,  especially  since  the 
word  Sha-bat-tu  may  be  identical  in  meaning  with 
gamaru,  to  complete  or  finish,  which  leads  naturally 
to  the  idea  of  rest,  because  the  work  is  completed. 
(3)  There  is  no  definite  evidence  that  the  five 
days  mentioned  were  called  Sha-bat-tu;  the  name 
is  given  rather  to  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month, 
which  is  the  day  of  the  full  moon. 


178  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OP 

In  tlic  light  of  these  facts  it  is  not  improbable 
that  there  is  some  connection  between  the  Hebrew 
Sabbath  and  certain  special  days  among  the 
Babylonians;  but,  as  in  other  easels,  the  Hebrews 
have  given  to  the  adopted  institution  a  new 
significance.  Some  of  the  changes  introduced  by 
the  Hebrews  are:  (a)  The  Hebrews  observed  every 
seventh  day  without  regard  for  the  month  or 
the  year.  The  Babylonians  observed  the  seventh, 
fourteenth,  twenty-first,  and  twenty-eighth  days 
of  each  month,  (b)  The  motive  underlying  the 
observance  among  the  two  people  differs.  The 
earliest  Hebrew  legislation  (Exod.  23.  12)  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  humanitarian  considerations 
are  responsible  for  Stibbath  observance,  not  reli- 
gious superstition,  (c)  The  Sabbath  law  of  the 
Hebrews  was  binding  on  all.  According  to  our 
present  knowledge,  among  the  Babylonians  only 
the  leaders  appear  to  have  been  affected. 

The  Babylonians,  Egyptians,  and  other  ancient 
peoples  had  in  addition  to  the  Sabbath  numerous 
other  festivals,  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  some 
of  the  Hebrew  festivals  are  connected  with  these, 
though  the  exact  relation  is  not  yet  determined. 

Archeology  has  thrown  much  light  on  the 
complicated  ceremonial  system  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, though  it  is  an  exaggeration  to  say  that, 
"if  we  want  to  trace  the  origin  of  the  late  Jewish 
ceremonial  of  the  Priest  Code,  we  must  look  for 


TTTE  OLD  ll^.STAMENT  179 

it  in  the  cuiKMform  ritual  texts  of  the  Baby- 
lonians,"(^*')  Attention  may  be  called  here  to  a 
few  of  the  more  marked  similarities  between  the 
Hebrew  and  Babylonian  systems.  (^')  (1)  The 
Babylonian  temple  closely  resembled  the  temple 
of  Solomon.  Both  had  two  courts,  chambers  for 
the  priests,  the  sanctuary,  and  the  Holy  of  holies. 
Externally,  both  were  mere  rectangular  boxes, 
without  much  architectural  beauty  or  variety  of 
design.  It  was  only  in  the  possession  of  a  tower 
that  the  Babylonian  temple  differed  from  the 
Hebrew,  a  difference  due  to  a  diff(>rence  in  the 
conception  of  Deity.  The  temples  agreed  even 
in  the  details  of  their  furniture:  the  two  altars  of 
the  Babylonian  sanctuary  are  found  again  m  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem;  so  also  the  mercy  seat  and 
the  table  of  showbread.  The  bronze  sea  of 
Solomon  was  modeled  after  a  Babylonian  original. 
The  twin  pillars,  which  Solomon  erected  in  the 
porch  of  the  temple,  have  their  counterparts  in 
Babylonian  sanctuaries.  Even  the  sacred  ark 
seems  to  have  had  a  Babylonian  origin,  though 
some  would  trace  it  to  Egypt.  (2)  Every  great 
sanctuary  had  its  chief  priest.  Under  him  was  a 
large  number  of  subordinate  priests  and  temple 
ministers,  such  as  sacrificers,  pourers  of  libations, 
anointers  with  oil,  bakers,  chanters,  wailers,  etc. 
Connected  with  the  sanctuaries  were  also  the 
prophets,  augurs,  soothsayers,  necromancers,  etc. 


180  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Though  not  all  these  classes  of  religious  workers 
arc  found  in  connection  with  the  Jewish  sanc- 
tuaries, the  chief  priest  and  his  subordinates  are 
found  there  as  well  as  in  Babylon.  (3)  Similar- 
ities in  the  details  of  the  sacrificial  system  may  be 
noted.  Libations  were  poured  out  before  the 
deities,  consisting  originally,  probably,  of  pure 
water,  to  which  was  subsequently  added  wine, 
made  either  from  the  palm  or  the  vine.  All  the 
first-fruits  of  the  cultivated  land  were  offered  to 
the  god;  milk  and  butter  and  oil,  dates  and  veg- 
etables were  given  in  abundance.  So  too  were 
spices  and  incense,  brought  from  the  southern 
coast  of  Arabia,  the  corn  that  was  grown  in  the 
fields,  garlic  and  other  herbs  from  the  garden, 
and  honey  from  the  hive.  Annual  sacrifices  were 
not  forgotten.  Oxen  and  calves,  sheep  and  lambs, 
goats  and  kids,  fish  and  certain  kinds  of  birds, 
were  slain  upon  the  altar.  There  are  traces  of 
human  sacrifice,  but,  as  among  the  Hebrews,  the 
practice  disappeared  at  an  early  date.  "Baby- 
lonia," says  Sayce,  "was  the  inventor  of  the 
tithe, "(")  which  was  paid  by  all  classes,  even 
the  king.  One  of  the  last  acts  recorded  of  the 
cro\Mi  prince,  Belshazzar,  is  the  payment  of  a 
tithe,  forty-seven  shekels  in  amount,  due  from 
his  sister  to  the  temple  of  the  sun-god  at  Sippara. 
The  daily  sacrifice  was  a  fixed  custom.  Several 
of  the  technical  terms  of  the  Old  Testament  are 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  181 

found  also  in  Assyrian.  For  example:  torah,  law, 
has  its  counterpart  in  the  Assyrian  tertu;  the 
biblical  kipper,  atoiicniont,  is  the  Assyrian  kuppuru; 
korhan,  gift  or  offering,  is  the  Assyrian  kurhannu. 
The  names  for  animal  sacrifice,  zihu,  for  meal 
offering,  manitn,  and  for  freewill  offering,  nidhu, 
all  are  found  in  their  Hebrew  forms  in  the  Old 
Testament.  As  in  the  Hebrew  legislation,  a  dis- 
tinction is  made  between  the  offerings  of  the  rich 
and  the  poor,  and  the  sacrificial  animal  was  to  be 
without  blemish.  The  Babylonian  priest  retained 
certain  parts  for  himself,  which  was  also  the 
custom  among  the  Hebrews  (Deut,  18.  3),  though 
the  parts  retained  are  not  the  same  in  the  two 
cases.  A  ritual  tablet  shows  that  Babylonians 
sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  lamb  that  was  killed 
at  the  gate  of  the  palace  on  the  lintels,  on  the 
figures  flanking  the  entrances,  and  on  the  door- 
posts to  the  right  and  the  left,  which  has  its 
parallel  in  the  Hebrew  passover  ceremony. 

These  illustrations,  which  by  no  means  exhaust 
the  list,  reveal  close  similariti(;s  between  the 
Hebrew  ceremonial  and  that  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Euphrates-Tigris  valley,  and  the  more  we 
know  of  the  Babylonian  ritual,  the  more  extensive 
and  striking  these  resemblances  become.  They 
both  start  from  the  same  principles  and  agree  in 
many  of  their  details.  Between  them,  however, 
lies  that  deep  gulf  which  separates  the  religion  of 


182  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Israel  from  that  of  Babylonia  as  a  whole.  The 
one  is  monotheistic,  the  other  polytheistic.  Upon 
the  basis  of  this  fundamental  difference  the  reli- 
gious leaders  of  Israel  gave  to  the  similar  forms 
adopted  from  other  nations  a  new  and  deeper 
meaning  and  significance. 

Like  the  Hebrew  religion,  the  religion  of  Baby- 
lonia has  its  guardian  angels.  (")  The  Babylonian 
rulers  stood  in  need  of  hosts  of  messengers  to 
bear  their  behests  into  all  quarters  of  their  do- 
minions. In  a  similar  manner,  it  was  thought, 
the  gods  needed  their  heavenly  hosts  to  carry  out 
their  commissions.  These  angels  are  represented 
under  various  forms,  but  all  of  them  are  equipped 
with  wings,  so  as  to  be  able  to  carry  upon  the 
winds  of  heaven  the  commands  of  the  gods  to  the 
children  of  men.  Sometimes  they  are  represented 
with  eagles'  heads,  perhaps  to  indicate  that  they 
possess  the  keenness  of  vision  and  the  rapidity  of 
flight  of  an  eagle;  sometimes  they  have  human 
countenances  to  denote  their  human  intelligence. 
Frequently  they  appear  as  hybrid  figures,  with  the 
body  of  a  lion  or  bull,  the  wings  of  an  eagle,  and 
the  head  of  a  man,  symbolizing  strength,  swiftness, 
and  intelligence. 

The  duties  of  these  angels  are  manifold.  Those 
placed  at  the  entrances  of  palaces  or  temples  are 
to  guard  those  entrances.  The  peculiar  relations 
of  angels  to  men  are  suggested,  for  example,  by 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  183 

a  letter  of  a  Babylonian  officer  to  the  queen 
mother.  He  writes:  "Mother  of  the  king,  my  lady, 
be  comforted.  Bel's  and  Nabu's  angel  of  mercy 
attends  on  the  king  of  the  land,  my  lord."  A 
letter  addressed  to  Esarhaddon  contains  these 
words:  "May  the  great  gods  send  a  guardian  of 
salvation  and  life  to  stand  by  the  king  my  lord." 
And  Nabopolassar,  the  founder  of  the  Chaldean 
empire,  and  father  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  writes: 
"To  lordship  over  land  and  people,  Marduk  called 
me.  He  sent  a  cherub  of  mercy  to  attend  on  me, 
and  everything  I  undertook  he  aided." 

Alongside  of  these  guardian  angels  there  appear 
evil  spirits  and  demons.  "These  demons  were 
everywhere:  they  lurked  in  every  corner,  watching 
for  their  prey.  The  city  streets  knew  their 
malevolent  presence,  the  rivers,  the  seas,  the  tops 
of  the  mountains.  They  appeared  sometimes  as 
serpents  gliding  noiselessly  upon  their  victims;  as 
birds,  horrid  of  mien,  flying  resist lessly  to  destroy 
or  afflict;  as  beings  in  human  form,  grotesque, 
malformed,  awe-inspiring  through  their  hideous- 
ness.  To  these  demons  all  sorts  of  misfortunes 
were  ascribed:  toothache,  headache,  broken  bones, 
raging  fever,  outbursts  of  anger,  of  jealousy.  Did 
a  man  lie  wasting  of  disease  and  torn  of  pain,  a 
demon  was  thought  to  be  within  him,  the  disease 
being  but  a  manifestation  of  his  malevolence. 
There  could  be  no  return  of  the  precious  boon  of 


184  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

good  health  until  the  demon  was  exorcised,  and 
it  was  to  the  exorcising  of  demons  that  so  large, 
so  disproportionate  a  part  of  the  religious  literature 
of  Babylon  and  Nineveh  was  devoted. "(^0  Some- 
times demons  are  referred  to  in  a  manner  which 
shows  that  the  conception  in  Job  1.  6ff.,  Zech. 
3.  Iff.,  of  the  Adversary,  or  the  Satan,  is  closely 
related  to  the  Babylonian  conception  of  a  demon 
as  accuser,  persecutor,  or  oppressor. 

The  vision  of  the  Old  Testament  is  largely 
confined  to  this  world.  There  is  little  hope  for  a 
man  after  he  passes  away  from  this  earth.  Indeed, 
there  are  some  passages  which  would  seem  to  imply 
the  thought  that  with  death  existence  came  entirely 
to  an  end.    Compare,  for  example,  Psa.  39. 13: 

Oh,  spare  me,  that  I  may  recover  strength 
Before  I  go  hence,  and  be  no  more; 

or  Job  14.  7-12: 

For  there  is  hope  of  a  tree. 

If  it  be  cut  down,  that  it  will  sprout  again, 

And  that  the  tender  branch  thereof  will  not  cease. 

Though  the  root  thereof  wax  old  in  the  earth, 

And  the  stock  thereof  die  in  the  ground; 

Yet  through  the  scent  of  water  it  will  bud, 

And  put  forth  boughs  hke  a  plant. 

But  man  dieth,  and  is  laid  low; 

Yea,  man  giveth  up  the  ghost,  and  where  is  he? 

As  the  waters  fail  from  the  sea, 

And  the  river  wasteth  and  drieth  up; 

So  man  lieth  down  and  riseth  not: 

Till  the  heavens  be  no  more,  they  shall  not  awake, 

Nor  be  roused  out  of  their  sleep. 


T\\\<]  OLD  TESTAMENT  185 

These  are  expressions  of  deepest  despondency  and 
despair  over  a  life  soon  ended,  never  to  be  lived 
again  here  upon  earth. 

However,  by  far  the  greatest  number  of  Old 
Testament  passages  dealing  with  the  subject  ex- 
press a  belief  in  a  continuous  existence  after  death 
in  Sheol.  Sheol  is  the  place  of  departed  person- 
alities; the  generations  of  one's  forefathers  are 
there:  he  who  dies  is  gathered  unto  his  fathers; 
the  tribal  divisions  of  one's  race  are  there:  the 
dead  is  gathered  unto  his  people ;  and  if  his  descend- 
ants have  died  before  him,  they  are  there,  and  he 
goes  do^^^^  to  them,  as  Jacob  to  his  son  (Gen.  37.  35: 
"For  I  will  go  dow^n  to  Sheol  to  my  son  mourn- 
ing"), and  David  to  his  child  (2  Sam.  12.  23: 
"I  shall  go  to  him,  and  he  shall  not  return  to  me"). 

There  are  only  a  few  passages  which  go  beyond 
this,  expressing  a  hope  of  immortality  or  a  resur- 
rection. There  is,  for  example,  the  hope  expressed 
inPsa.  16.8-11: 

I  have  set  Jehovah  always  before  me: 

Because  he  is  at  my  right  hand,  I  shall  not  be  moved. 

Therefore  my  heart  is  glad,  and  my  glory  rejoiceth: 

My  flesh  also  shall  dwell  in  safety. 

For  thou  will  not  leave  my  soul  to  Sheol; 

Neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thy  holy  one  to  see  corruption. 

Thou  wilt  show  me  the  path  of  life: 

In  thy  presence  is  fullness  of  joy; 

In  thy  right  hand  there  are  pleasiu-es  for  evermore. 

The  hope  expressed  here  is  not  a  hope  of  a  resur- 
rection, but,  rather,  a  hope  that  the  psalmist  will 


186  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

be  delivered  from  death  and  live  in  fellowship 
with  God  forevermore.  There  are  other  passages 
which  recognize  the  impossibility  of  escaping 
death,  but  express  a  hope  that  there  will  be  a 
resurrection  from  death.  The  most  definite  Old 
Testament  teaching  of  a  resurrection  is  in  Dan. 
12.  2,  ''And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust 
of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life, 
and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt." 

These  lofty  hopes  are  peculiar  to  Israel.  But 
Israel's  conception  of  Sheol  shows  very  striking 
resemblances  with  the  Babylonian  conception. 
The  descriptions  found  in  Job,  in  the  Psalms,  in 
Isaiah,  in  Ezekiel  and  elsewhere,  are  hardly  to  be 
distinguished  from  those  found  in  Babylonian  liter- 
ature. The  opening  lines  of  Ishtar's  descent  into 
Sheol  read: 

To  the  land  from  which  there  is  no  return,   the  home  of 

d.arknesa, 
Ishtar,  the  daughter  of  Sin,  turned  her  mind, 
Yea,  the  daughter  of  Sin  set  her  mind  to  go; 
To  the  house  of  gloom,  the  dwelling  of  Irkalla, 
To  the  house  from  which  those  who  enter  depart  not, 
The  road  from  whose  path  there  is  no  return; 
To  the  house  where  they  who  enter  are  deprived  of  light; 
A  place  where  dust  is  their  nourishment,  clay  their  food; 
The  light  they  behold  not,  in  thick  darkness  they  dwell; 
They  are  clad  like  bats  in  a  garb  of  wings; 
On  door  and  bolt  the  dust  is  laid. 

Compare  with  this  Job  10.  21,  22: 

Before  I  go,  whence  I  shall  not  return, 

To  the  land  of  darkness,  yea  deepest  darkness, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  187 

The  land  dark  as  midnight, 

Of  decpppt  darkness  without  any  order, 

And  where  the  light  is  as  midnight; 

or  Job  7.  9,  10; 

He  that  goeth  down  to  Sheol  shall  come  up  no  more, 
He  shall  return  no  more  to  his  house. 
Neither  shall  his  place  know  him  any  more. 

Other  similarities  may  be  noted :  tlie  Hebrew  Sheol, 
Uke  the  Babylonian,  was  deep  do\\Ti  in  the  earth; 
it  is  pictured  as  a  cavern;  silence  reigns  su- 
preme, etc.  There  is  but  one  explanation  for 
these  similarities:  When  the  ancestors  of  the 
Hebrews  left  their  homes  in  the  Euphrates  valley 
they  carried  with  them  the  traditions,  beliefs,  and 
customs  current  in  that  district.  Under  new  sur- 
roundings, and  especially  under  the  influence  of 
their  higher  religion,  new  features  were  added  and 
old  conceptions  were  transformed.  But  these 
changes  were  not  able  to  obscure  entirely  the 
character  impressed  upon  the  older  beliefs  by 
contact  with  Babylon. 

Striking  similarities  are  found  also  between  the 
legal  systems  of  Babylonia  and  Israel.  In  the 
light  of  recent  discoveries  the  study  of  ancient 
law  begins  to-day,  not  with  the  legal  systems  of 
Rome,  or  of  Greece,  or  of  Israel,  but  with  the  laws 
of  early  Babylonia.  Of  the  beginning  of  the  Baby- 
lonian legal  system  we  know  nothing  except  a 
few  popular  traditions,  which  trace  it  back  to 
some  deity.    It  is  clear,  however,  that  long  cen- 


188  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

tiiries  before  the  time  of  Moses  or  Minos  or  Romulus 
the  people  living  in  the  lower  Euphrates-Tigris 
valley  developed  legal  codes  of  a  high  and  complex 
order.  In  the  legal  phrase  books  of  the  later 
scribes  there  have  been  preserved  seven  so-called 
Sumerian  family  laws,  written  in  the  language  of 
the  people  occupying  the  southern  part  of  the 
Euphrates-Tigris  valley  before  it  came  under  the 
sway  of  the  Semites.  These  laws,  in  theme  and 
literary  form  resembling  later  Babylonian  and 
early  Hebrew  laws,  were  probably  in  existence 
in  the  fourth  millennium  B.  C;  some  of  them  may 
go  even  farther  back. 

By  far  the  most  important  Babylonian  legal  code 
now  known  is  the  so-called  Code  of  Hammurabi. (^^) 
Hammurabi  was  known  to  Assyriologists  long  be- 
fore the  finding  of  his  legal  code.  He  reigned  in 
Babylon  about  B,  C.  2000,  was  the  sixth  king  of  the 
first  Babylonian  dynasty,  and  the  first  permanently 
to  unite  the  numerous  small  city  states  under  one 
ruler.  He  may,  therefore,  be  called  the  founder 
of  the  Babylonian  empire.  From  his  numerous 
letters  and  inscriptions,  as  also  from  other  docu- 
ments coming  from  the  same  period,  he  was 
knowTi  as  a  great  conqueror  and  statesman, 
interested  in  the  highest  welfare  of  his  people, 
and  persistently  laboring  for  the  improvement  of 
their  conditions.  The  Bible  student  has  a  special 
interest  in  Hammurabi,  however,  because  in  a]l 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  189 

probability  he  is  no  other  than  the  Amraphel  of 
Gen.  14.  1. 

The  monument  on  which  the  code  is  engraved 
was  found  during  the  winter  1901-1902  by  a 
French  excavator  in  the  acropoHs  of  Susa,  tlie 
scene  of  the  book  of  Esther.  It  is  a  block  of 
black  diorite,  about  eight  feet  in  height.  When 
found  it  was  in  three  pieces,  which,  however,  were 
easily  joined.  On  the  obverse  is  a  bas  relief 
representing  the  king  as  receiving  the  ruler's  stafif 
and  ring  from  the  sun-god  Shamash,  "the  judge 
of  heaven  and  earth."  Then  follow  on  the  obverse 
sixteen  columns  of  writing,  containing  1,114  lines. 
There  were  five  more  columns  on  this  side,  but 
they  were  erased  and  the  stone  repolished,  prob- 
ably by  theElamite  conqueror  who  carried  the  moii- 
nmciit  to  Snsa.  On  the  reverse  are  twenty-eight 
columns  with  more  than  2,500  lines  of  inscription. 
The  English  Assyriologist,  C.  H.  W.  Johns,  esti- 
mates that  originally  the  inscription  contained 
forty-nine  colunms,  4,000  lines,  and  about  8,000 
words.  About  800  lines  are  taken  up  by  the 
prologue  and  epilogue,  setting  forth  the  king's 
titles,  his  glory,  the  extent  of  his  rule,  his  care 
for  his  subjects,  and  devotion  to  his  gods.  The 
inscription  opens  with  a  statement  of  his  call  by 
the  gods  to  be  the  ruler  of  Babylon:  "When  the 
lofty  Aim,  kmg  of  the  Animaki,  and  Bel,  lord  of 
heaven  and  earth,  he  who  determines  the  destiny 


190  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

of  the  land,  committed  the  rule  of  all  mankind  to 
Marduk,  the  chief  son  of  Ea;  when  they  made 
him  great  among  the  Igigi;  when  they  pronounced 
the  lofty  name  of  Babylon,  when  they  made  it 
famous  among  the  quarters  of  the  world,  and  in 
its  midst  established  an  everlasting  kingdom, 
whose  foimdations  were  firm  as  heaven  and  earth 
—at  that  time,  Anu  and  Bel  called  me,  Ham- 
murabi, the  exalted  prince,  the  worshiper  of  the 
gods,  to  cause  justice  to  prevail  in  the  land,  to 
destroy  the  wicked  and  the  evil,  to  prevent  the 
strong  from  oppressing  the  weak,  to  go  forth  like 
the  sun  over  the  blackhead  race,  to  enlighten  the 
land  and  to  further  the  welfare  of  the  people." 

According  to  the  closing  statement  of  the 
prologue  he  faithfully  executed  this  commission: 
"When  Marduk  sent  me  to  rule  the  people  and 
to  bring  help  to  the  country,  I  established  law 
and  justice  in  the  land  and  promoted  the  welfare 
of  the  people"  (V.  14-21).  To  better  care  for 
the  welfare  of  the  people  he  set  up  the  code  of 
laws.  In  column  XLI,  a  part  of  the  epilogue,  he 
says:  "Let  any  oppressed  man,  who  has  a  cause, 
come  before  my  image  as  king  of  righteousness! 
Let  him  read  the  inscription  on  my  monument! 
Let  him  give  heed  to  my  weighty  words!  And 
may  my  monument  enlighten  him  as  to  his  cause 
and  may  he  understand  his  case!  May  he  set  his 
heart  at  ease!"     (1-19.)     He  recognizes  the  value 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  191 

of  his  law  code  and  advises  his  successors  on  the 
throne  to  make  good  use  of  it:  "In  the  days  that 
are  yet  to  come,  for  all  future  time,  may  the  king 
who  is  in  the  land  observe  the  words  of  righteous- 
ness which  I  have  written  upon  my  monument! 
May  he  not  alter  the  judgments  of  the  land  which 
I  have  pronounced,  or  tlie  decisions  of  the  country 
which  I  have  rendered!  May  he  not  efface  my 
statues!  If  that  man  have  wistlom,  if  he  wish 
to  give  his  land  good  government,  let  him  give 
attention  to  the  words  which  I  have  written  upon 
my  monument!  And  may  this  monument  en- 
lighten him  as  to  procedure  and  administration, 
the  judgments  which  I  luive  pronounced,  and  tlie 
judgments  which  I  liavo  rendered  for  the  land! 
And  let  him  rightly  rule  his  blackhead  people; 
let  him  pronounce  judgments  for  them  and  render 
for  them  decisions!  Let  him  root  out  the  wicked 
and  evildoer  from  the  land!  Let  him  promote  the 
welfare  of  his  people!"     (59-94.) 

The  epilogue  closes  with  a  blessing  upon  the 
king  who  will  observe  the  laws,  and  curses  upon 
him  who  will  disregard  or  alter  them  (XLII- 
XLIV).  The  pronomicement  of  blessings  is  very 
brief;  the  curses  are  reiterated  m  various  forms, 
and  numerous  gods  and  goddesses  are  appealed 
to  by  name  to  destroy  the  evildoer  and  his  reign. 
The  section  begins  (XLII,  2-49):  "If  that  man 
pay  attention  to  my  words  which  I  have  written 


192  TTTE  CHRTSTTAN  YTEW  OF 

upon  my  monument,  do  not  efface  ni}^  judgments, 
do  not  overrule  my  words,  and  do  not  alter  my 
statues,  then  will  Shamash  prolong  that  man's 
reign,  as  he  has  mine,  who  am  king  of  righteous- 
ness, that  he  may  rule  his  people  in  righteousness." 
It  continues:  "If  that  man  do  not  pay  attention 
to  my  words  which  I  have  written  upon  my 
monument;  if  he  forget  my  curses  and  do  not  fear 
the  curse  of  god;  if  he  abolish  the  judgments 
which  I  have  formulated,  overrule  my  words,  alter 
my  statues,  efface  my  name  written  thereon  and 
write  his  own  name;  on  account  of  these  curses 
commission  another  to  do  so — as  for  that  man, 
be  he  king  or  lord,  or  priestking  or  commoner, 
whoever  he  may  be,  may  the  great  god,  the  father 
of  the  gods,  who  has  ordained  my  reign,  take  from 
him  the  glory  of  his  sovereignty,  may  he  break 
his  scepter  and  curse  his  fate!" 

Between  the  prologue  and  the  epilogue  is  the 
law  code  proper.  Originally  there  appear  to  have 
been  282  separate  enactments  (this  is  the  estimate 
of  the  French  Assyriologist,  Father  Scheil,  who 
first  edited  the  code,  and  is  commonly  accepted 
as  correct);  of  these  66-99  are  now  missing  as  a 
result  of  the  erasure  to  which  reference  has  been 
made.  The  code  covers  a  variety  of  topics.  Laws 
dealing  with  the  same  subject  are  ordinarily 
grouped  together;  sometimes  the  principle  of 
arrangement  is  the  class  or  profession  concerned. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  193 

A  brief  outline  will  give  at  least  a  general  notion 
of  its  contents:  1,  2,  False  accusation  of  a  crime; 
3,  4,  False  witness  and  bribery;  5,  Alteration  of 
judgment  by  a  judge;  6-S,  Theft;  9-13,  Concealing 
of  stolen  property;  14,  Kidnapping;  15-20,  Assist- 
ing in  the  escape  of  slaves;  21-25,  Burglary  and 
brigandage;  26-41,  Rights  and  duties  of  officers, 
constables,  and  taxgatherers;  42-52,  Renting  of 
fields  for  cultivation;  53-56,  Care  of  dykes  and 
canals;  57,  58,  Shepherds  allowing  their  sheep  to 
pasture  on  the  fields  of  another;  59,  Unlawful 
cutting  down  of  trees;  60-65,  Duties  of  gardeners; 
66-99,  (lost);  100-107,  Relation  of  merchants  to 
their  agents;  108-111,  Regulations  concerning 
wine-sellers,  always  women.  It  may  be  interesting 
to  note  that  with  them  the  law  was  very  severe. 
Of  the  three  crimes  condemned — minor  crimes  at 
that — one  is  to  be  punished  by  throwing  the  wine- 
seller  into  the  water,  the  second  by  putting  her 
to  death,  the  third  by  burning  her.  112,  Loss  of 
goods  intrusted  for  transportation;  113-119,  Secur- 
ing settlement  for  debts;  120-126,  Liability  for 
deposits;  127,  Slander;  128,  Marriage  contract; 
129-132,  Adultery,  rape,  and  suspected  unchastity; 
133-143,  Separation  and  divorce;  144-149,  Con- 
cubines; 150-152,  Marriage  dowry;  153,  Murder  of 
husband  for  the  sake  of  another;  154-158,  Illegiti- 
mate sexual  intercourse;  159-161,  Breach  of 
promise;  162-164,  Disposition  of  dowry  after  the 


104  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OE 

death  of  the  wife;  165-177,  Inheritance  of  sons 
in  polygamous  relations;  178-182,  Inheritance  of 
priestesses;  183,  184,  Inheritance  of  daughters  of 
concubines;  185-194,  Treatment  of  adopted  chil- 
dren; 195-214,  Offenses  against  limb  and  life; 
215-225,  Operations  by  doctors  and  veterinary 
surgeons.  For  example,  "If  a  physician  cause  a 
man  a  severe  wound  with  a  bronze  lancet  and 
cause  the  man's  death,  or,  in  opening  an  abscess 
of  a  man  with  a  bronze  lancet,  destroy  the  man's 
eye,  they  shall  cut  off  his  fingers"  (218).  226,  227, 
Unlawful  branding  of  slaves;  228-233,  Liability  of 
negligent  builders.  For  example,  "If  a  builder 
build  a  house  for  a  man,  and  do  not  make  its 
construction  firm,  and  the  house  which  he  has 
built  collapse  and  cause  the  death  of  the  owner 
of  the  house,  that  builder  shall  be  put  to  death" 
(229).  234-252,  Hired  animals—the  injuries  they 
cause  or  suffer;  253-277,  Rights  and  duties  of 
workmen ;  278-282,  Selling  and  treatment  of  slaves. 
In  addition  to  this  very  complete  code  there  is 
a  vast  amount  of  information  from  both  early  and 
late  periods  concerning  legal  practices,  to  be 
gathered  from  the  thousands  of  tablets  recording 
business  and  legal  transactions  of  various  sorts: 
Marriage  and  dowry  contracts,  partnership  agree- 
ments, records  of  debts  and  promissory  notes, 
leases  of  land,  houses,  or  slaves;  records  of  sales 
of  all  kinds  of  property,  mortgages,  documents 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  195 

granting  the  power  of  attorney;  concerning  adop- 
tion, divorce,  bankruptcy,  inheritance — in  short, 
almost  every  imaginable  kind  of  contract. 

Over  against  this  complex  legal  system  of 
Babylonia  we  may  place  the  legal  literature  of  the 
Hebrews.  (^®)  Anyone  who  approaches  the  study 
of  Hebrew  laws  is  met  by  two  difficulties.  In  the 
first  place,  the  legal  portions  do  not  form  separate 
books,  but  are  embodied  in  writings  belonging  to 
other  kinds  of  literature ;  in  the  second  place,  there 
is  a  lack  of  system  in  the  arrangement  of  the  laws. 
The  abrupt  transitions  from  one  subject  to  another 
are  almost  as  marked  as  they  are  in  the  book  of 
Proverbs.  "Civil  and  ceremonial,  criminal  and 
humane,  secular  and  religious,  ancient  and  late 
laws  and  precedents  are  all  mingled  together, 
with  little  trace  of  systematic  arrangement." 

The  legal  literature  is  found  mainly  in  the  books 
of  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy; 
outside  the  Pentateuch  the  most  important  piece 
of  legislation  is  Ezek.  40-4S.  This  legal  material 
may  be  separated  from  its  surroundings  and 
arranged  by  itself.  Indeed,  this  has  been  done, 
and  modern  scholars  are  quite  generally  agreed 
that  the  Pentateuch  contains  several  distinct  legal 
codes  belonging  to  different  periods  in  the  history 
of  Israel  and  reflecting  different  stages  of  political, 
social,  and  religious  development:  (1)  The  Dec- 
alogue;  (2)   the  Book  of  the  Covenant;  (3)   the 


19fi  THE  CHETSTIAN  YJ¥M  OF 

Deuterononiic  Code;  (4)  the  Code  of  Holiness;  (5) 
the  Priestly  Code.  Of  these  five  codes  the  last 
two  are  almost  entirely  religious  and  ceremonial, 
and  as  the  similarities  between  the  Babylonian 
and  Plebrew  ceremonial  have  already  been  pointed 
out,  they  need  not  be  considered  in  this  connection. 
The  other  three  contain  much  legislation  concern- 
ing social,  civil,  and  criminal  relations,  just  like 
the  Babylonian  legal  provisions,  and  therefore 
may  be  considered  somewhat  more  in  detail.  In 
connection  with  the  Deuteronomic  Code,  however, 
it  may  be  noted  that  thn^e  fourths  of  the  laws 
in  the  earlier  codes  are  reproduced  in  some  form 
in  Deuteronomy;  so  that  for  purposes  of  com- 
parison, the  Deuteronomic  Code  does  not  furnish 
many  new  elements.  It  is  seen,  therefore,  that  for 
a  comparative  study,  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  Decalogue  and  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  on  the  other,  furnish  the  most 
important  material;  and  since  the  Code  of  Ham- 
murabi contains  no  religious  and  ceremonial  pro- 
visions, the  material  of  that  nature  in  the  Hebrew 
codes  may  be  omitted  in  this  connection. 

That  there  exist  similarities  between  the  legisla- 
tions of  the  two  nations  even  a  superficial  reading 
will  show.  One  is  immediately  struck,  for  example, 
by  the  similarity  in  the  application  of  the  lex  ialionis: 
Ham.  196,  "If  a  man  destroy  the  eye  of  another 
man,  they  shall  destroy  his  eye";  197,  "If  one 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  197 

break  a  man's  bone,  they  shall  break  his  bone"; 
200,  "If  a  man  knock  out  the  tooth  of  a  man  of 
his  own  rank,  they  shall  knock  out  his  tooth." 
With  this  compare  I^^xod.  21.  23-25,  "Thou  shalt 
give  life  for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth, 
burning  for  burning,  wound  for  wound,  stripe 
for  stripe";  or  Deut.  19.  21,  "Thine  eyes  shall 
not  pity;  life  shall  go  for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth 
for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot."  Compare 
also  Lev.  24.  19,  20,  "If  a  man  cause  a  blemish 
in  his  neighbor;  as  he  hath  done,  so  shall  it  be 
done  to  him:  breach  for  breach;  eye  for  eye, 
tooth  for  tooth;  as  he  hath  caused  a  blemish  in 
a  man,  so  shall  it  be  rendered  to  him."  This 
principle  is  applied  very  extensively  in  both  codes 
in  providing  restitution  for  damage  done. 

The  use  of  "the  oath  of  innocence"  is  also 
enjoined  in  both  codes:  Ham.  249,  "If  a  man  hire 
an  ox  and  a  god  strike  it  and  it  die,  the  man 
who  hired  the  ox  shall  swear  before  god  and  shall 
go  free."  With  this  may  be  compared  Exod,  22. 
10,  11,  "If  a  man  deliver  unto  his  neighbor  an 
ass,  or  an  ox,  or  a  sheep,  or  any  beast  to  keep, 
and  it  die,  or  be  hurt,  or  driven  away,  no  man 
seeing  it,  the  oath  of  Jehovah  shall  be  between 
them  both,  whether  he  hath  not  put  his  hand 
unto  liis  neighbor's  goods,  and  the  owner  thereof 
shall  accept  it,  and  he  shall  not  make  restitution." 
The   illustrations  might   be  multiplied  manifold. 


198  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Jeremias  points  out  twenty-four  similarities  be- 
tween tlie  Code  of  Hammurabi  and  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant  alone;  ("')  which  number  is  greatly 
increased  if  the  comparison  is  extended  so  as  to 
include  the  entire  Pentateuch. 

The  spirit  permeating  the  two  systems  is  one  of 
humaneness  and  kindness.  Hammurabi  describes 
himself  as  a  shepherd  chosen  by  the  gods  to  care 
for  his  people,  to  lead  them  into  safe  pastures 
and  to  make  them  dwell  in  peace  and  security. 
He  compiled  the  code,  "that  the  great  should  not 
oppress  the  weak;  to  counsel  the  widow  and 
orphan,  to  render  judgment  and  to  decide  the 
decisions  of  the  land,  and  to  succor  the  injured." 
This  is  the  same  spirit  that  permeates  the  Penta- 
teuchal  legislation. 

The  picture  at  the  head  of  the  code,  representing 
Hammurabi  standing  before  the  sun-god  Shamash, 
"the  supreme  judge  of  heaven  and  earth,"  is  very 
suggestive,  for  it  reminds  one  of  the  narrative  in 
Exodus  which  represents  Moses  as  receiving  the 
Hebrew  laws  directly  from  Jehovah. 

Certainly,  there  are  also  differences  between  the 
two  systems;  and  this  is  only  what  we  should  expect, 
since  the  civilization  of  Babylon  was  far  in  ad- 
vance of  and  much  more  complex  than  that  of  the 
Israelites,  even  during  the  period  of  the  latter's  high- 
est development.  Besides,  the  lower  religious  con- 
ceptions would  inevitably  influence  the  legislation. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  199 

Attention  may  be  called  also  to  some  similarities 
between  the  Decalogue  and  certain  requirements 
in  Babylonia,  the  existence  of  which  is  implied 
in  an  incantation  (^'*)  in  which  these  questions  are 
asked:  Has  he  broken  into  the  house  of  his  neigh- 
bor? Has  he  approached  the  wife  of  his  neighbor? 
Has  he  spilled  the  blood  of  his  neighbor?  Has 
he  grasped  the  garment  of  his  neighbor?  These 
questions  would  seem  to  imply  the  existence  of 
laws  like  these:  Thou  shalt  not  break  into  the 
house  of  thy  neighbor;  Thou  shalt  not  approach 
the  wife  of  thy  neighbor;  Thou  shalt  not  spill  the 
blood  of  thy  neighbor;  Thou  shalt  not  grasp  the 
garment  of  thy  neighbor. 

In  view  of  all  those  similarities,  the  question 
naturally  arises  whether  the  Babylonian  legal 
system  exerted  an}-  influence  upon  the  lawmakers 
of  the  Hebrews,  for  the  resemblances  are  too  close 
to  be  explained  entirely  on  the  basis  of  coin- 
cidence. Those  who  admit  some  relation  between 
the  two  legislations  are  not  in  agreement  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  connection.  Some  hold  that 
there  is  direct  dependence;  that  the  author  or 
authors  of  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  was  or 
were  acquainted  with  the  laws  of  Hammurabi, 
and  made  these  laws  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew 
legislative  system.  The  possibility  of  such  de- 
pendence cannot  be  denied.  Surely,  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Code  of  Haiimmrabi  in  the  Arabian 


200  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

desert  or  in  Palestine  at  tlio  time  of  the  exodus 
or  later  cannot  appear  strange  in  view  of  the 
evidence  of  the  Tel-el-Anuirna  tablets,  showing 
that  some  time  before  the  exodus  intercourse 
between  Babylon  and  the  West  was  frequent;  that 
religious,  political,  and  literary  influence  was  wide- 
spread, and  that  the  language  of  Babylon  was 
the  lingua  jranca  throughout  Canaan.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  those  who  believe  that  the 
parallels  and  analogies  between  the  two  codes  are 
due  to  the  common  Semitic  origin  of  the  two 
systems.  The  Babylonians  and  the  Hebrews  were 
Semites,  originally  dwelling  in  a  common  home. 
When  they  left  this  home  they  carried  with  them 
their  common  traditions,  laws,  customs,  and  prac- 
tices. In  their  new  homes  they  developed  them 
and  impressed  upon  them  their  own  individuality. 
The  result  among  the  Hebrews,  determined  in  a 
large  measure  by  their  peculiar  religion,  is  seen 
in  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch,  while  the 
outcome  in  Babylon  is  best  represented  by  the 
Code  of  Hammurabi. 

Which  of  these  two  explanations  is  correct  it 
may  be  impossible  to  say  with  absolute  certainty. 
To  me  it  seems  that  both  contain  elements  of 
truth.  Sometimes  the  one,  sometimes  the  other 
may  be  correct,  while  in  other  cases  the  similar- 
ities may  be  due  to  coincidence.  In  any  case, 
the  value  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  remains 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  201 

unaffected,  for  it  depends,  not  upon  its  origin  or 
process  of  growth,  but,  rather,  upon  its  inherent 
spirit  and  cluiractcr. 

Attention  may  further  be  called  to  the  existence 
in  Babylonia  of  stories  showing  almost  startling 
resemblances  to  the  accounts  of  the  creation  of 
the  world,  of  the  origin  of  man  and  of  sin,  of  a 
Deluge,  and  other  narratives  contained  in  the 
first  eleven  chapters  of  the  book  of  Genesis. 
Sevenil  distinct  creation  stories,  originating  in 
different  religious  centers,  have  been  handed 
down.  The  most  remarkable  of  these,  called 
Enuma  elish  (when  above),  from  its  opening  words, 
has  been  deciphered  from  tablets  found  in  the 
Ubrary  of  Ashurbanipal  in  the  ruhis  of  Nineveh. 
These  tablets  represent  a  copy  made  in  the  seventh 
century  B.  C.  The  time  of  the  composition,  or 
compilation  of  the  story,  is  not  known.  However, 
pictorial  representations  of  some  of  the  scenes  in 
the  epic,  and  allusions  in  other  literary  productions 
whose  dates  can  be  fixed,  make  it  certain  that  the 
story,  or  at  least  the  most  important  component 
elements  of  the  story,  existed  before  B.  C.  2000. 
In  its  present  form  it  belongs  to  a  period  later 
than  the  elevation  of  Babylon  to  be  the  national 
center,  which  took  place  under  Hammurabi,  about 
B.  C.  2000,  for  the  chief  place  is  assigned  to  Marduk, 
the  god  of  Babylon.  (^^) 

Echoes  of  this  story  are  found  in  several  Old 


202  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Testament  passages,  especially  in  the  poetic  and 
proplietic  writings.  In  these  Jehovah  is  repre- 
sented as  having  contended  with  a  great  primeval 
monster,  called  in  some  passages  Rahab,  in  others 
Leviathan,  or  Dragon.  This  being  seems  to  sym- 
bolize chaos,  or  to  personify  the  primeval  ocean, 
which  existed  when  the  process  of  creation  began. 
In  the  conflict  between  Jehovah  and  this  monster 
the  hostile  creature  and  its  helpers  were  over- 
thrown, after  which  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
were  created.  A  few  of  these  passages  may  be 
quoted : 

O  Jehovah  God  of  hosts, 

Who  is  a  mighty  one,  lilie  unto  thee,  O  Jehovah? 
And  thy  faithfulness  is  round  about  thee. 
Thou  rulest  the  pride  of  the  sea: 
When  the  waves  thereof  arise,  thou  stillest  them. 
Thou  Jiast  broken  Rahab  in  pieces,  as  one  thai  is  slain; 
Thou  hast  scattered  thine  enemies  with  the  arm  of  thy  strength. 
The  heavens  are  thine,  the  earth  also  is  thine: 
The  world  and  the  fullness  thereof,  thou  hast  founded  them, 
The  north  and  the  south,  thou  hast  created  them  (Psa.  89. 
8-12). 

Rahab  is  a  reflection  of  the  Babylonian  Tiamat; 
Jehovah  takes  the  place  of  the  Babylonian  god, 
Marduk,  the  conqueror  of  Tiamat;  the  enemies 
are  the  helpers  of  Tiamat  mentioned  in  the  Baby- 
lonian poem.  The  order  of  events  is  the  same  in 
the  two  accounts:  first  the  conflict,  then  creation. 

He  atirreth  up  the  soa  with  liis  power. 

And  by  his  understanding  he  smileth  through  Rahab, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  203 

By  his  Spirit  the  heavens  are  garnished; 

His  hand  hath  pierced  the  swift  serpent  (Job  26.  12,  13). 

God  will  not  withdraw  his  anRcr; 

The  helpers  oj  Rahab  do  stoop  under  him  (Job  9.  13). 

Yet  God  is  my  King  of  old, 

Working  salvation  in  the  midst  of  the  earth. 

Thou  didst  divide  the  sea  by  thy  strength: 

Thou  brakcst  the  heads  of  (he  sca-mo?is(ers  in  the  waters. 

Thou  brakest  the  heads  of  levinthnn  in  pieces; 

Thou  gavest  him  to  be  food  to  the  people  inhabiting  the 

wilderness. 
Thou  didst  cleave  fountain  and  flood: 
Thou  driedst  up  mighty  rivers. 
The  day  is  thine,  the  night  also  is  thine: 
Thou  hast  prepared  the  light  and  the  sun. 
Thou  hast  set  all  the  borders  of  the  earth: 
Thou  hast  made  summer  and  winter  (Psa.  74.  12-17). 

The  similarities  between  the  Babylonian  story 
called  Enuma  elUh  and  the  narrative  of  creation 
in  Gen.  1  are  especially  pronounced:  (1)  Both 
accounts  recognize  a  time  when  all  was  chaos. 
In  the  Babylonian  conception  this  chaos  is  per- 
sonified in  Tiamat;  in  Gen.  1.  2  occurs  the  word 
tehom,  translated  "deep,"  which  is  the  same  as 
Tiamat,  changed  but  slightly  in  passing  from  one 
language  to  the  other.  (2)  In  Genesis  light  dispels 
darkness  and  order  follows;  in  the  Babylonian 
account,  Marduk,  the  god  of  light,  overcomes  the 
demon  of  chaos  and  darkness.  (3)  The  second 
act  of  creation  is  the  making  of  the  firmament, 
which  "divided  the  waters  which  were  under  the 


204  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

firmament  from  the  waters  which  were  above  the 
firmament"  (Gen.  1.  6-8);  in  the  Babylonian 
poem  the  body  of  Tiamat  is  divided  and  one  half 
becomes  the  firmament  to  keep  the  heavcmly 
waters  in  place.  (4)  The  third  and  fourth  acts 
of  creation  in  the  Hebrew  story  are  the  creation 
of  earth  and  the  beginning  of  vegetation  (Gen.  1. 
9-13);  the  corresponding  Babylonian  story  has 
been  lost,  but  it  seems  quite  probable  that  these 
acts  were  described  in  the  same  order  on  the 
fifth  tablet.  Berosus,  in  his  sunmiary  of  the 
Babylonian  account,  says  that  Bel  formed  the 
earth  out  of  one  half  of  Omorka's  body — Omorka 
is  probably  a  corruption  of  Ummu-Khuhur,  a 
title  of  Tiamat — and  as  in  every  instance  where 
the  narrative  of  Berosus  has  been  tested  it  has 
proved  to  be  correct,  we  may  assume  that  in  this 
also  he  gives  a  correct  reproduction  of  the  Baby- 
Ionian  tradition.  Moreover,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  seventh  tablet  Marduk  is  hailed  as  ''bestower 
of  fruitfulness,"  "founder  of  agriculture,"  "creator 
of  grain  and  plants,"  he  "who  caused  the  green 
herb  to  spring  up."  (5)  The  fifth  act  of  creation 
is  the  making  of  the  heavenly  bodies  (Gen.  1. 
14-19).  With  this  the  Babylonian  parallel  shows 
close  similarities,  for  it  states  that  Marduk 

Made  the  stations  for  the  great  gods, 

The  stars,  their  images,  as  the  constellations  he  fixed, 

He  ordained  the  year,  marked  off  its  divisions.  ('") 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  205 

(6)  The  sixth  and  seventh  acts  of  creation  were 
the  creation  of  fishes  and  birds  and  of  land  ani- 
mals (Gen.  1.  20-25);  the  Babylonian  parallels 
in  Enuma  elish  are  wanting  at  present;  but  Berosus 
hints  that  they  were  created  at  the  same  time 
as  man,  so  that  it  is  probable  that  the  account 
of  these  acts  of  creation  appeared  somewhere  in 
the  lost  portions  of  the  fifth  or  sixth  tablet.  From 
allusions  in  other  writings  we  learn  that  Marduk 
was  looked  upon  as  the  creator  of  the  animals 
and  other  living  creatures  of  the  field.  (7)  The 
eighth  act  of  creation,  that  of  man  (Gen.  1.  26-31), 
finds  its  parallel  upon  the  sixth  tablet: 

When  Marduk  heard  the  word  of  the  gods 

His  heart  moved  him  and  he  devised  a  cunning  plan. 

He  opened  his  mouth  and  unto  Ea  he  spoke, 

That  which  he  had  conceived  in  his  heart  he  made  known 

unto  him. 
"My  blood  will  I  take  and  bone  will  I  fashion, 
I  shall  make  man  that  man  may     .     .     . 
I  shall  create  man,  who  shall  inhabit  the  earth, 
That  the  service  of  the  gods  may  be  established  and  that 

their  slirines  may  be  built."  C\) 

In  order  to  estimate  rightly  the  relations  be- 
tween the  Babylonian  and  Hebrew  accoimts  the 
differences  between  the  two  must  also  be  noted. 
To  begin  with,  the  order  of  the  separate  acts  of 
creation  is  not  quite  the  same.  For  example, 
in  the  Babylonian  account,  the  creation  of  the 
heavenly   bodies   follows   immediately   upon    the 


206  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

making  of  the  firmament,  while  in  the  Hebrew 
story  it  follows  the  making  of  the  earth  and  the 
springing  up  of  vegetation.  Certainly,  this  differ- 
ence is  of  no  special  significance,  and  the  change 
may  easily  be  explained  as  due  to  the  desire  of 
the  Hebrew  writer  to  crowd  the  creative  acts 
into  the  six  working  days  of  the  week.  The  real 
difference  is  more  fundamental  and  appears  espe- 
cially in  the  conception  of  the  nature  and  char- 
acter of  Deity.  The  Babylonian  story  opens  with 
these  words: 

When  above  the  heaven  was  not  named 

And  beneath  tlie  earth  bore  no  name, 

And  the  i)rimeval  Apsu,  who  begat  them, 

And  Mummu-Tiamat,  the  mother  of  them  all — 

Their  waters  were  mingled  together, 

And  no  reed  was  formed,  no  marsh  seen, 

When  no  one  of  the  gods  had  been  called  into  being, 

[And]  none  bore  a  name,  and  no  destinies  [were  fixed]. 

Then  were  created  the  gods  in  the  midst  oj  {heaven\. 

Compare  with  this  the  simple,  yet  majestic, 
conception,  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth."  In  one  case  many  gods, 
m  the  other  one  God  almighty;  in  one  case  the 
gods  are  a  part  of  the  process  of  creation,  in  the 
other  the  uncreated  God  is  in  the  beginning. 
Genesis  presents  God  as  almighty,  but  also  as 
kind,  beneficent,  loving;  Marduk,  the  Babylonian 
creator,  is  represented  as  a  great  hero,  but  exceed- 
ingly selfish.     He  undertakes  the  mighty  task  of 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  207 

overcoming  Tiamat  only  after  making  arrange- 
ments for  a  suitable  reward.  The  description  of 
the  heavenly  banquet  scene,  to  which  reference 
has  been  made  earlier  in  the  cliaptcr,  implies  a 
conception  of  the  character  of  the  gods  which  is 
separated  by  an  impassable  gulf  from  the  Old 
Testament  ideal. 

No  one  can  read  with  an  unbiased  mind  the 
two  accounts  without  realizing  the  great  differ- 
ences between  the  mythological,  polytheistic  ac- 
count of  the  Babylonians  and  the  simple,  solemn, 
sublime,  monotheistic  picture  in  Genesis.  The 
soberness,  the  dignity,  the  simplicity  of  the 
Hebrew  account  lift  it  far  above  its  Babylonian 
counterpart.  From  it  the  crude  nature  myths 
have  all  been  stripped  away.  No  drunken  gods 
hold  revels  in  its  solenm  lines.  Above  and  behind 
and  in  all  is  one  righteous  and  beneficent  God. 
In  this  sublime  ethical  monotheism  the  Hebrew 
story  rises  infinitely  above  the  story  that  originated 
in  the  Euphrates-Tigris  valley. 

Another  Babjdonian  tradition,  the  close  relation 
of  which  to  the  biblical  account  has  long  been 
recognized,  is  the  story  of  the  Deluge.  In  its 
cuneiform  text  it  was  first  discovered  on  fragments 
of  tablets  brought  from  the  library  of  Ashurbanipal. 
But  that  the  Babylonians  possessed  a  story  of 
the  Flood  was  known  before  from  an  outline 
preserved  by  Berosus.     The   tradition  brought  to 


208  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

lif::lit  by  archaeology  forms  an  episode  in  an  epic 
which  narrates  the  exploits  of  Gilgamesh  and 
occupies  the  eleventh  of  the  twelve  parts  into 
which  the  epic  is  divided.  Gilgamesh  sprang 
from  a  city,  Shurippak,  which  afterward  com- 
pletely disappeared.  He  became  king  of  Erech, 
where  he  ruled  as  a  tyrant  until  the  gods  created 
Ea-bani  to  destroy  him.  The  two,  however, 
became  bosom  friends.  Together  they  delivered 
Erech  from  the  Elamite  oppressor,  Kliumbaba. 
Ishtar,  the  goddess  of  love,  then  offered  her  hand 
to  Gilgamesh  in  marriage,  which  he  spurned  with 
scorn.  Out  of  revenge,  she  sent  a  scorpion, 
whose  sting  proved  fatal  to  Ea-bani.  Gilgamesh 
himself  she  smote  with  an  incurable  disease.  To 
find  relief,  the  latter  set  out  for  the  dwelling 
place  of  his  great-grandfather,  Ut-napishtim,  far 
away  on  the  isles  of  the  blessed.  When  he  finally 
reaches  him  the  latter  tells  him  all  about  the 
great  Flood  from  which  he  escaped  to  enjoy 
eternal  life.C^^) 

The  most  striking  resemblances  between  the 
Babylonian  and  Hebrew  stories  of  the  Flood  may 
now  be  noted:  (1)  Compare  the  instruction  given 
by  God  to  Noah  (Gen.  6.  13-22)  with  the  words 
addressed  by  the  god  Ea  to  Ut-napishtim: 

O  man  of  Shurippak,  son  of  Ubaratutu, 

Pull  down  thy  house,  build  a  ship, 

Leave  thy  possessions,  take  thought  for  thy  life, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  209 

Thy  property  abandon,  save  thy  life, 
Bring  living  seed  of  every  kind  into  the  ship. 
The  ship  that  thou  shalt  build, 
So  shall  be  the  nicjusurc  of  its  dimensions. 
Thus  shall  correspond  its  breadth  and  height, 
Into  the  ocean  let  it  fare.(^^) 

(2)  In  botli  accounts  the  destruction  is  due  to 
sin.  This  is  definitely  stated  in  Gen.  G.  5-7. 
For  the  Babylonian  story  it  is  unplied  in  the 
rebuke  given  to  Bel  by  Ea: 

On  the  sinner  lay  his  sin, 

On  the  transgressor  lay  his  transgression. 

Forbear,  let  not  all  be  destro3'ed. ('''') 

(3)  In  both  accounts,  only  a  seed  of  life  sufficient 
to  replenish  the  earth  is  saved.  Compare  Gen.  6. 
19,  20  with  the  command,  ''Bring  living  seed  of 
every  kind  into  the  ship,"  or  with  the  statement: 

I  brought  into  the  ship  my  family  and  household; 
The  cattle  of  the  field,  the  beasts  of  the  field,  craftsmen,  all 
of  them  I  brought  in.(^^) 

(4)  Both  stories  tell  of  a  great  storm  and  deluge 
of  water.  Gen.  7.  11  reads,  "The  fountains  of 
the  great  deep  were  broken  up,  and  the  windows 
of  heaven  were  opened.  And  the  rain  was  upon 
the  earth  forty  days  and  forty  nights."  Com- 
pare with  tliis: 

The  dawning  of  that  day  I  feared, 

I  feared  to  behold  that  day. 

I  entered  the  ship  and  closed  the  door. 

When  the  first  flush  of  dawn  appeared 

There  came  \ip  from  the  horizon  a  black  cloud. 


210  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Adad  thundered  within  it, 

While  Nabii  and  Marduk  went  before. 

They  go  jis  messengers  over  mountain  and  valley. 

Nergal  bore  away  the  anchor. 

Ninib  advances,  the  storm  he  makes  to  descend. 

The  Anunaki  lifted  up  their  torches, 

With  their  brightness  they  light  up  the  land. 

Adad's  storm  reached  unto  heaven, 

All  light  was  turned  into  darkness. 

It  [flooded]  the  land  like     .     .     . 

the  storm 

Raged  high,  [the  water  climbed  over]  the  mountains, 
Like  a  besom  of  destruction  they  brought  it  upon  men.C^") 

(5)  In  both  instances  the  structure  rests  upon  a 
mountain  in  the  north.  Gen.  8.  4  reads,  "And 
the  ark  rested  .  .  .  upon  the  mountains  of  Ararat," 
that  is,  Armenia.     The  Babylonian  story  reads: 

To  the  land  of  Nisir  the  ship  made  its  way. 

The  mount  of  Nisir  held  it  fast  that  it  moved  not.(") 

Mount  Nisir  is  east  of  the  upper  Tigris.  (6)  In 
both  cases  birds  are  sent  out  to  ascertain  the  con- 
dition of  the  land.  Compare  Gen.  8.  6-12  with 
these  lines: 

When  the  seventh  day  approached 

I  sent  forth  a  dove  and  let  her  go. 

The  dove  flew  to  and  fro. 

But  there  was  no  resting  place  and  she  returned. 

I  sent  forth  a  swallow  and  let  her  go; 

The  swallow  flew  to  and  fro, 

But  there  was  no  resting  place,  and  she  returned. 

I  sent  forth  a  raven  and  let  her  go; 

The  raven  flew  away,  she  saw  the  abatement  of  the  waters, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  211 

She  drew  near,  she  waded  (?),  Bhe  croaked,  and  came  not 

back. 
Then    I    sent    everything    forth    to    the    four    quarters    of 

heaven.  (**) 

(7)  Sacrifice  is  offered  by  Noah  and  Ut-napishtim, 
acceptable  to  the  God  of  Noah  and  to  the  gods 
of  the  Babylonian  hero,  in  both  cases  resulting 
in  a  promise  not  to  repeat  the  Flood.  Compare 
Gen.  8.  20-22  with: 

I  offered  sacrifice, 
I  made  a  Ubation  upon  the  mountain's  peak. 
By  sevens  I  set  out  the  sacrificial  vessels, 
Beneath  them  I  heaped  up  reed  and  cedar  wood  and  myrtle. 
The  gods  smelt  the  savor, 
The  gods  smelt  the  sweet  savor. 
The  gods  gathered  like  flies  over  the  sacrificer.  ('') 

Other  similarities  might  be  noted,  such  as  the 
use  of  bitumen,  the  arrangement  of  the  ship  in 
stories,  and,  what  seems  more  striking,  the  fact 
that  the  hero  of  the  Babylonian  story  is  the 
tenth  antediluvian  king,  while  Noah  is  the  tenth 
antediluvian  patriarch. 

As  in  the  stories  of  creation,  marked  differences 
may  also  be  noted  between  the  two  representations 
of  the  Flood;  and  these  differences  appear  where 
they  are  most  significant,  namely,  in  the  spirit 
and  purity  of  conception  permeating  the  entire 
Hebrew  account.  For  example,  the  book  of 
Genesis  introduces  the  divine  displeasure  with  sin, 
the  ethical  element,  as  a  fimdamental  note;  then, 


'31?  THE  C^ETSTIA^T  VIEW  OF 

when  the  divine  mercy  is  aroused,  the  Flood 
ceases;  according  to  the  Babylonian  story,  the 
Flood  is  caused  by  the  capricious  anger  of  Bel, 
the  idea  of  punishment  for  sin  cropping  out  only 
as  an  incident  in  the  conversation  between  Ea 
and  Bel  at  the  end  of  the  story.  The  Flood 
ceases  because  the  other  gods  are  terrified,  and 
Ishtar  intercedes  for  her  own  creation.  Moreover, 
the  whole  Hebrew  conception  of  the  Divine  differs 
from  the  Babylonian.  In  the  Hebrew  account  we 
find  ourselves  in  an  atmosphere  of  ethical  monothe- 
ism that  is  unknown  apart  from  the  chosen  people. 
Disappeared  have  all  the  gods  who  war  with  one 
another,  who  rejoice  in  successful  intrigues,  who 
do  not  hesitate  to  tell  untruths  or  instruct  their 
favorites  to  do  so;  the  gods  unstable  in  all  their 
ways,  now  seeking  to  destroy,  now  flattering 
their  creatures;  the  gods  who,  terrified  by  the 
storm,  "cower  like  dogs"  at  the  edge  of  heaven, 
and  who  "gathered  like  flies"  around  the  sacrifice 
of  the  saved  hero.  All  these  characteristic  features 
of  the  Babylonian  account  are  absent  from  the 
Bible.  Surely,  there  is  no  connection  between 
these  deities  and  the  one  sublime  and  gracious 
God  of  Genesis. 

Lack  of  space  will  not  permit  us  to  institute 
detailed  comparisons  between  other  narratives  in 
the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  and  Babylonian 
literature.    It  may  be  sufficient  to  say  that  the 


'VWK  OLD  'I'ESTAMENT  213 

resemblances  are  not  confined  to  the  stories  of 
creation  and  of  the  Flood.  True,  no  complete 
Babylonian  story  of  paradise  and  of  the  fall  is 
at  present  known;  nevertheless,  there  are  certain 
features  in  the  biblical  narrative  which  strongly 
point  to  Babylonia,  and  in  the  light  of  the  known 
fact  that  elements  in  the  two  important  narratives 
of  creation  and  of  the  Flood  are  derived  from 
Babylonia,  it  may  be  safe  to  infer  that  in  this 
case  also  echoes  of  Babylonian  beliefs  supplied, 
at  least  in  part,  the  framework  of  the  Hebrew 
representation.  The  antediluvian  patriarchs  also 
seem  to  have  their  counterparts  in  Babylonian 
tradition,  and  the  story  of  the  Tower  of  Babel, 
though  it  does  not  seem  to  be  of  Babylonian  origin, 
presupposes  a  knowledge  of  Babylonia,  and  it  is  not 
impossible  that  some  Babylonian  legend  served  as 
the  basis  of  it. 

In  closing  this  discussion,  attention  may  be 
called  to  a  few  general  considerations  that  must 
be  borne  in  muid  in  any  attempt  to  answer  the 
question  whether  the  religious  and  ethical  ideas 
of  the  Hebrews  which  show  similarities  with  the 
ideas  of  other  nations  were  borrowed  bodily  from 
these  nations,  or,  after  all,  contain  elements  that 
were  original  with  the  Hebrews. 

In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
similarities  between  the  customs  or  beliefs  of  two 
peoples  do  not  necessarily  imply  the  dependence 


214  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

of  one  upon  the  other;  much  less  do  they  indicate 
which  is  the  original.  Where  similarities  are 
found  at  least  four  possibilities  should  be  recog- 
nized: A  may  depend  upon  B;  B  may  depend 
upon  A;  both  A  and  B  may  have  been  derived 
from  a  common  original;  or  A  and  B  may  have 
developed  independently,  the  similarities  being 
merely  coincidence.  Which  interpretation  is  the 
right  one  in  a  given  case  does  not  lie  on  the  surface; 
it  is  only  by  careful,  patient,  unbiased  study  that 
one  may  arrive  at  a  proper  understanding.  Take 
as  an  illustration  the  Decalogue.  The  Buddhists 
have  "ten  prohibitory  laws,"  sometimes  called  the 
"Buddhist  Decalogue."  The  first  five  read,  "Thou 
shalt  not  kill;  Thou  shalt  not  steal;  Thou  shalt 
not  lie;  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery;  Thou 
shalt  not  get  drunk."  Three  of  these  correspond 
exactly  to  three  of  the  demands  in  the  Jewish 
Decalogue.  Does  it  necessarily  follow  that  the 
Decalogue  was  borrowed  from  Buddha?  The 
Egyptians  also  had  a  sacred  law.  The  law  itself 
has  not  yet  come  to  light,  but  the  Book  of  the 
Dead  indicates  its  existence.  In  the  one  hundred 
and  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  this  book  we  read 
the  justifications  offered  by  the  dead:  "I  have 
not  acted  with  deceit  or  done  evil  to  men;  I 
have  not  oppressed  the  poor;  I  have  not  judged 
unjustly,"  etc.  These  negations  seem  to  implv 
the   existence   of  a   law,   either  oral   or    written, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  215 

forbidding  those  things.  From  the  negations,  "I 
have  not  acted  with  deceit;  I  have  not  committed 
murder;  I  have  not  been  unchaste,"  etc.,  one 
may  infer  that  the  Egyptians  had  precepts 
corresponding  substantially  to  some  of  the  require- 
ments in  the  Decalogue.  Docs  logic  demand, 
therefore,  the  conclusion  that  the  Decalogue  owes 
its  existence  to  the  saci-ed  law  of  the  Egyptians? 
Among  the  Babylonians  also  we  find  evidence  of 
the  existence  of,  at  least,  some  of  the  requirements 
of  the  Hebrew  Decalogue:  "Thou  slialt  not  break 
into  the  house  of  thy  neighbor;  Thou  shalt  not 
approach  the  wife  of  thy  neighbor;  Thou  shalt 
not  spill  the  blood  of  thy  neighbor;  Thou  shalt 
not  grasp  the  garment  of  thy  neighbor."  Do 
these  similarities  prove  beyond  question  the 
dependence  of  the  one  upon  the  other? 

There  are,  then,  marked  resemblances  between 
the  Hebrew  Decalogue,  certain  requirements  among 
the  Babylonians,  among  the  Egyptians,  and 
among  the  Buddhists.  I  know  of  no  one  who 
claims  that  the  Decalogue  was  borrowed  from 
Buddha;  some,  however,  seem  to  think,  that  in 
part  at  least,  it  was  dependent  upon  Babylon; 
others,  that  Moses  is  indebted  for  it  to  Egypt. 
True,  in  the  minds  of  most  scholars  the  dependence 
is  not  direct;  there  would  be  room,  according  to 
their  theory,  for  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
selection  of  these  fundamental,  ethical  conceptions 


216  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

from  the  great  mass  of  requirements,  the  majority 
of  which  are  far  inferior  to  the  Decalogue.  Such 
dependence,  even  if  it  could  be  proved,  would 
not  rob  the  Decalogue  of  inspiration  or  permanent 
value;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  similarities 
do  not  warrant  the  claim  of  even  such  dependence. 
Is  it  not  more  likely  that  these  similarities  are 
due  to  the  mstinct  implanted  in  man  by  the 
Creator,  which  recognizes  the  sanctity  of  life,  of 
family  relations,  and  of  property  rights?  But  this 
instinct  does  not  account  for  the  obvious  differ- 
ences between  the  Hebrew  Decalogue  as  a  whole 
and  the  legislations  of  other  peoples.  These  must 
be  traced  to  the  special  activity  of  a  Spirit  who 
produced  among  the  Hebrews  a  collection  of 
commandments  such  as  natural  instinct,  if  left 
to  itself,  could  not  have  produced. 

It  is  different,  perhaps,  when  we  consider  the 
relation  of  the  more  comprehensive  civil  legislation 
of  the  Pentateuch  to  the  Code  of  Hammurabi. 
There  the  resemblances  are  numerous  and  striking 
enough  to  justify  the  inference  that  there  exists 
some  relation  of  dependence,  and  yet  by  no  means 
that  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  is  borrowed 
directly  from  the  other,  or  even  that  there  is  a 
literary  dependence.  How  extensive  this  depend- 
ence is  only  careful  examination  can  show;  but, 
however  complete,  it  will  not  destroy  the  fact 
that  the  laws  of  Israel  are  permeated  by  a  Divine 


Till-:  OI.l)  'I'KS'l'AMKNT  217 

Spirit,  The  iniportunt  question  is  not,  Where  do 
we  find  the  natural  basis  upon  which  the  system 
is  built  up  by  men  under  divine  guidance?  but, 
Does  the  spirit  and  character  of  the  system  indi- 
cate such  guidance? 

In  the  second  place,  in  seeking  the  truth  about 
this  relationship  assumption  must  not  be  confused 
with  knowledge.  Motlern  archaeologists  seem  to 
be  in  peculiar  danger  of  taking  things  for  granted. 
It  is  not  without  reason  that  a  prominent  Old 
Testament  scholar  proposes  to  change  the  title 
of  the  third  edition  of  a  book  entitled  The  Cunei- 
form Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament  into  The 
Cuneiform  Scholar  and  the  Old  Testament,  It  is 
stated,  for  example,  without  qualification  by 
Delitzsch  that  the  name  "Yahweh"  has  been 
discovered  on  inscriptions  belonging  to  the  period 
of  Hammurabi,  No  hint  is  given  that  the  read- 
ing is  questioned  by  many  Assyriologists.  There 
is,  at  least,  a  possibility,  no  matter  how  small,  of 
a  different  rendering,  with,  of  course,  a  vastly 
different  conclusion.  But  admitting,  as  I  believe 
we  must  do,  that  the  name  does  occur,  the  hi- 
ference  drawn  from  this  occurrence  by  Delitzsch, 
and  expressed  in  the  following  words,  is  an  assump- 
tion and  misleading,  unless  it  is  materially  modi- 
fied: "Yahweh,  the  abiding  one,  the  permanent 
one,  who,  unlike  man,  is  not  to-morrow  a  thing 
of  the  past,  but  one  that  endures  forever,  that 


218  THE  CTIKISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

lives  and  labors  for  all  eternity  above  the  broad, 
resplendent,  law-bound  canopy  of  the  stars — it 
was  this  Yahweh  that  constituted  the  primordial 
patrimony  of  those  Canaanite  tribes  from  which 
centuries  afterward  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel 
sprang,  "C*")  The  fact  is  that  you  may  search 
the  Babylonian  pantheon  from  one  end  to  the 
other  and  you  will  not  find  one  god  who  in  nature 
and  character  can  compare  with  the  Jehovah  of 
Israel,  "merciful  and  gracious,  slow  to  anger,  and 
abimdant  in  loving-kindness  and  truth." 

Another  instance  of  the  same  character  is  the 
story  of  the  fall.  One  thing  we  know,  namely, 
that  a  story  of  the  fall  of  man,  similar  to  that 
in  Genesis,  has  not  as  yet  been  found  among  the 
fragments  of  Babylonian  libraries.  Certainly,  such 
story  may  have  existed,  and  probably  did  exist; 
it  may  even  be,  as  has  been  asserted,  that  some 
connection  exists  between  the  scriptural  story  of 
the  fall  and  the  picture  on  an  old  Babylonian 
seal  cylinder  having  in  the  center  a  tree  with 
fruits  hanging  down,  on  each  side  a  figure,  and 
behind  the  figure  at  the  left  a  mark  which  may 
represent  a  serpent.  But  the  interpretation  is  by 
no  means  certain.  The  fact  that  an  assertion  is 
made  by  an  expert  favors  the  presumption,  but 
does  not  prove,  that  the  statement  is  true. 

Some  archaeologists  claim  that  the  monotheism 
of    Israel    was    derived    from  outside  of   Israel, 


THE  OLD  'I'KSTAMENT  219 

either  from  Arabia(")  or  from  Babylonia  ("). 
Among  the  arguments  in  favor  of  this  claim  is 
the  occurrence  of  ):)roper  names  which  are  alleged 
to  imply  the  existence  of  monotheism;  for  example, 
Yasma-ilu,  which  may  be  translated  "God  hears," 
implying  the  existence  of  but  one  God.  However, 
it  might  mean  also  "a  god  hears,"  or  *'god" — 
referring  to  one  of  many — "hears,"  the  giver  of 
the  name  singling  out  the  one  for  special  con- 
sideration. And  as  there  are  clear  indications  of 
polytheism  in  southern  Arabia,  where  the  name 
is  found,  the  name,  in  all  probability,  means  the 
latter,  thus  implying  polytheism.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  names  found  in  Babylonia.  What- 
ever the  primary  meaning  of  ilu,  these  names  do 
not  in  themselves  prove  the  existence  of  monothe- 
ism. They  may  be  translated  in  perfect  accord 
with  logic  and  grammar  as  admitting  the  existence 
of  more  than  one  god.  Indeed,  the  historical 
facts  demand  such  interpretation.  If  we  find,  for 
example,  "Sin-muballit"  ("the  moon-god  brings  to 
life")  as  the  name  of  the  father  of  Hammurabi, 
and  "Shamshu-iluna"  (in  all  probability,  "the 
sim-god  is  our  god")  as  that  of  his  son,  the  facts 
surely  indicate  that  the  monotheism  of  the  period 
was  not  very  distinct.  The  testimony  of  the  Code 
of  Hammurabi  points  in  the  same  direction,  as 
also  the  most  spiritual  utterances  of  religion  in 
the  Euphrates  valley,  the  penitential  psahns. 


220  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

It  is  seen,  then,  that  facts  do  not  warrant  the 
claim,  made  by  some,  that  that  upon  which  rests 
the  significance  of  the  Bible  m  the  world's  history, 
namely,  monotheism,  was  taken  over  by  the 
Hebre^^'s  from  the  Babylonians.  Josh.  24.  2  re- 
mains uncontradicted:  "Your  fathers  dwelt  of 
old  time  beyond  the  River,  even  Terah,  the 
father  of  Abraham,  and  the  father  of  Nahor; 
and  they  served  other  gods."  It  is  only  in  Israel 
that  we  find  a  clearly  developed  monotheism. 
Assumption  and  facts  are  not  quite  the  same. 

Another  hnportant  point,  to  which  attention  has 
already  been  called,  is  the  marked  difference 
which  obtains  between  the  literature  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  that  uncovered  by  archaeology. 
True,  there  are  points  of  contact;  indeed,  strange 
it  would  be  if  there  were  none;  for,  like  the  Baby- 
lonians, the  Hebrews  were  Semites.  Surely,  it  is 
not  strange  that  nations  of  the  same  race,  originally 
in  the  same  home,  should  possess  similar  traditions, 
customs,  beliefs,  and  practices.  When  they  left 
their  common  home  they  carried  with  them  their 
common  traditions,  customs,  and  beliefs;  in  their 
new  homes  they  developed  them  and  impressed 
upon  them  their  own  individualities.  We  are 
nowhere  informed  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  it 
would  seem  contrary  to  reason  to  suppose,  that 
at  the  time  of  Abraham,  Moses,  or  at  any  other 
period,  God  emptied  the  Hebrew  mind  and  con- 


THE  OLD  ^PKSTAMENT  221 

sciousness  of  all  the  things  which  had  been  the 
possession  of  the  Semitic  race  from  the  bcgiiming. 
Is  it  not  more  likely  that  '^he  inspired  teachers 
and  writers  employed  for  then-  loftier  purposes 
the  ancient  traditions  and  beliefs  familiar  to  their 
contemporaries?  In  doing  so  they  took  that 
which  was,  in  some  cases,  common  and  unclean, 
and,  purifying  it  under  the  guidance  of  the  Divine 
Spu'it,  made  it  the  medium  by  which  to  impart 
the  sublimest  truths  ever  presented  to  man.  Ob- 
viously, the  special  religious  value  of  the  Old 
Testament  literature  does  not  lie  in  what  Is  common 
to  it  and  l^>abyl()n,  but  hi  the  elements  in  w^hich 
they  differ. 

The  points  of  contact  nmst  not  blind  the  eye 
to  the  points  of  contrast.  These  points  of  con- 
trast are  in  the  spirit  and  atmosphere  pervading 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  which  are  quite  distinct, 
not  simply  from  Babylonian,  but  from  all  other 
literatures.  These  essential  differences  occur,  as 
we  have  seen,  throughout  the  entire  religious 
and  ethical  literature.  In  many  cases  is  agree- 
ment in  form,  but  how  far  superior  the  spirit 
and  substance  of  the  Hebrew!  Think  of  the 
different  conceptions  of  the  nature  and  character 
of  God,  of  God's  relation  to  man,  of  the  divine 
government  of  the  world,  and  many  other  truths 
precious  to  Christians  in  all  ages.  There  is,  indeed, 
in  the  Hebrew  record  "an  intensity  of  spiritual  con- 


522  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

ception,  a  sublimity  of  spiritual  tone,  an  insight  into 
the  unseen,  a  reliance  upon  an  invisible  yet  all-con- 
trolling Power,  that  create  the  gap  between  the 
Hebrew  and  his  brother  Semite  beyond  the  River," 

How  are  we  to  account  for  these  differences? 
Professor  Sayce  has  suggested  an  answer  in  these 
words:  "I  can  find  only  one  explanation,  un- 
fashionable and  antiquated  though  it  be.  In  the 
language  of  a  former  generation,  it  marks  the 
dividing  line  between  revelation  and  unrevealed 
religion.  It  is  like  that  something  hard  to  define 
which  separates  man  from  the  ape,  even  though 
on  the  j)hysiological  side  the  ape  may  be  the 
ancestor  of  man."(^^)  Though  the  language  of 
this  statement  may  be  mifortmiate,  especially 
where  it  implies  that  there  is  no  revelation  in  the 
ancient  religions  outside  of  the  Old  Testament,  it 
does  call  attention  to  tlie  secret  of  the  fundamental 
difference  between  the  Old  Testament  sacred 
literature  and  that  of  the  surrounding  nations. 
There  is  in  the  former  abundant  evidence  of  the 
activity  of  a  Spirit  whose  presence  is  less  manifest 
in  the  sacred  literatures  of  other  ancient  nations. 

True,  the  monuments  have  not  spoken  their 
last  word;  but  if  we  have  the  right  to  draw  in- 
ferences from  the  known,  we  may  safely  affirm 
that  though  the  monuments  may  swell  into 
infinity,  they  will  offer  nothing  to  equal,  much 
less   to   supersede,   in   substance   and   spirit,   our 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  S23 

Old  Testament.  We  iriay  receive  gratefully  every 
ray  of  light,  but  the  time  has  not  yet  come,  nor 
ever  will  come,  when  we  may  lay  aside  the  Old 
Testament  and  accept  as  a  substitute  the  legends 
and  myths  of  heathen  lands  to  give  to  us  the 
bread  of  life  which  the  Saviour  found  in  the 
pages  of  the  Old  Book.  Let  us  welcome  the 
light  and  knowledge  God  has  bestowed  upon  us; 
let  us  rejoice  in  them  with  perfect  assurance  that 
they  are  for  good  and  not  for  evil;  let  us  learn 
to  use  them  wisely  and  honestly,  and  let  us  still 
be  ever  alert  listening  for  other  words,  uttered 
ages  ago,  but  not  yet  audible  to  modern  ears. 
''It  is  for  us  to  catch  these  messages,  and  to 
understand  them,  that  we  may  fit  them  into  the 
great  fabric  of  apprehended  truth  to  the  enrich- 
ment of  ourselves,  and  to  the  glory  of  our  common 
Lord." 

NOTES  ON  CHAPTER  V 

C)  J.  P.  Peters,  The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Scholar- 
ship, p.  92. 

C)  S.  G.  Smith,  Religion  in  the  Making,  p.  20. 

0)  Hugo  Winckler,  Himmels-  und  Weltenbild  der  Baby- 
lonier,  p.  9. 

(*)  Professor  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  of  the  University  of 
Berhn,  delivered  three  lectures  on  the  relation  of 
Babylonian  religion  to  the  religion  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, under  the  title,  "Babel  und  Bibel." 

C)  A.  H.  Sayce,  The  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and 
Babylonia,  pp.  276,  277. 

(')  A.  Jeremias,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the 
Ancient  East,  I,  p.  86, 


,??4  THE  CHKTSTTAX  VIEW  OF 

C)  R.  W.  Rogers,  The  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  As- 
8>Tia,  p.  SS.  Practically  all  the  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions quoted  or  referred  to  in  this  chapter  arc  trans- 
lated in  R.  W.  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels  to  the 
Old  Testament. 

(^)  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  Babel  and  Bible,  Two  Lectures, 
published  by  Open  Court  Co.,  p.  Go. 

(•)  A  translation  of  the  entire  psalm  is  found  in  Sayce, 
The  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  pp. 
419-421;  also  in  Rogers,  ReUgion  of  Babylonia 
and  Assyria,  pp.  182-184;  R.  F.  Harper,  Assyrian 
and  Babylonian  Literature,  pp.  436-439. 

(")  Sayce,  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia, 
pp.  35,  93,  195.  A  translation  of  a  hymn  composed 
by  this  king  to  his  supreme  god  is  found  in  J.  H. 
Breasted,  A  History  of  Egyi)t,  pp.  371ff. 

(")  An  excellent  brief  survey  of  the  religious  conceptions 
of  the  pre-Mosaic  period  is  given  in  the  article  on 
"Religion  of  Israel,"  by  E.  Kautzsch,  in  James 
Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Extra  Vol., 
pp.  613ff. 

(")  The  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  p.  95. 

(")  Ibid.,  p.  97. 

(")  The  most  recent  and  most  satisfactory  edition  and 
translation  of  the  entire  Babylonian  story  of  crea- 
tion is  by  L.  W.  King,  The  Seven  Tablets  of  Crea- 
tion. The  two  quotations  given  are  Tablet  I,  lines 
7-9,  and  Tablet  III,  lines  133-138. 

(")  Additional  portions  of  this  hymn  are  found  in  R.  W. 
Rogers,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  pp.  170ff. 

(")  S.  I.  Curtiss,  Primitive  Semitic  Religions  To-day,  p.  14. 

(")  A.  T.  Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from  Babel, 
p.  15;  A.  H.  Sayce,  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and 
Babylonia,  pp.  476ff.;  M.  Jastrow,  in  American 
Journal  of  Theology,  1898,  pp.  315-352;  A.  Jere- 
mias,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  An- 
cient East,  I,  pp.  198ff. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  325 

(")  Babel  and  Bible,  Two  Lectures,  p.  38. 

n  Ibid.,  p.  101. 

C)  Paul  Ilaupt,  Babylonian  Elements  in  the  Levitical 
Ritual,  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  1900,  p.  61. 

(^*)  The  details  of  this  question  have  been  discussed  very 
extensively.  Admirable  discussions  of  the  entire 
subject  are  found  in  Sayce,  Religions  of  Ancient 
Egypt  and  Babylonia,  pp.  448-478;  Jeremias, 
Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Ancient  East,  II, 
pp.  112ff. 

C^  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  p,  469. 

(")  DeUtzsch,  Babel  and  Bible,  Two  Lectures,  pp.  53ff. 

(**)  R.  W.  Rogers,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
p.  145. 

(")  R.  F.  Harper,  The  Code  of  Hammurabi;  art.  on  the 
same  subject  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
Extra  Vol.,  pp.  584ff.;  W.  W.  Davies,  The  Codes 
of  Hammurabi  and  Moses. 

(^*)  The  best  and  most  complete  recent  treatment  of  the 
legal  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  is  found  in 
C.  F.  Kent,  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents, 
which  is  Vol.  IV  in  The  Student's  Old  Testament. 

(")  Johannes  Jeremias,  Moses  and  Hammurabi,  pp.  31ff. 

(^')  R.  W.  Rogers,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
p.  158. 

C)  L.  W.  King,  The  Seven  Tablets  of  Creation,  Two 
Vols.;  a  translation  is  also  found  in  R.  F.  Harper, 
Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Literature,  pp.  282ff. 
R.  W.  Rogers,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
pp.  107ff. 

("»)  Tablet  V,  lines  1-3. 

(")  Lines  1-8. 

(")  An  English  translation  of  the  entire  epic  is  found  in 
R.  F.  Harper,  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Literature, 
pp.  324ff.;  the  Deluge  story  is  given  by  R.  W. 
Rogers,  ReUgion  of  Babylonia  and  Assjria,  pp 
199ff. 


226  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OE 

(»)  Lines  23-31. 

C*)  Lines  184-186. 

H  Lines  27,  85,  86. 

C«)  Lines  92-111. 

(")  Lines  141,  142. 

O  Lines  146-156. 

O  Lines  156-162. 

(*°)  Babel  and  Bible,  Two  Lectures,  p.  62. 

(**)  F.  Hommel,  The  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition,  pp.  75ff. 

(«)  F.  Delitzsch,  Babel  and  Bible,  pp.  58ff. 

(*^)  Preface  to  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia. 


THE  OLD  ^rESTAMENT  227 


CHAPTER  VI 

The  Permanent  Sic.NiFicANrE  of    the 
Old  Testament 

In  the  opening  paragraphs  of  Chapter  I,  atten- 
tion is  called  to  the  unique  place  occupied  by 
tlie  Old  Testament  in  the  thought,  life,  and  theology 
of  the  early  Church.  Throughout  tlie  Middle 
Ages,  and  in  the  eyes  of  the  Protestant  reformers, 
the  two  great  divisions  of  the  liible,  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  continued  to  command  equal 
respect  and  attention.  The  legal  principles  of  the 
Pentateuch  have  determined  the  legal  systems  of 
all  civilized  nations;  the  bold  and  fiery  sermons 
of  the  prophets  have  been  the  chief  inspiration 
on  the  fierce  bjittles  for  righteousness  in  all  ages; 
and  the  sublime  religious  lyrics  of  the  Psalter 
have  ushered  millions  into  the  very  presence  of 
God.  Indeed,  the  Old  Testament  has  exerted  an 
incalculable  influence  on  the  development  of 
religion  and  civilization. 

However,  it  must  be  admitted  that  during  the 
latter  part  of  the  nmeteenth  century  a  change  of 
attitude  toward  the  Old  Testament  seems  to  have 
taken  place.  True,  from  nearly  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  era  again  and  again   voices   have 


'??8  THE  CHT^TSTTAN  VIEW  OF 

been  hoard  denying  to  the  Old  Testament  a  place 
in  Christian  thought  and  life,  but  not  until  com- 
paratively recent  times  has  this  sentiment  become 
widespread.  Says  a  writer  in  a  book  published 
a  few  years  ago:  "The  Bible  was  never  more 
studietl  nor  less  read  than  at  the  present  day. 
This  paradox  is  true,  at  least,  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. For  two  generations  scores  of  patient 
scholars  have  toiled  on  the  text,  scanning  each 
letter  with  microscopic  care,  and  one  result  of 
their  labors  has  been  that  to  the  majority  of 
educated  men  and  women  of  whatever  belief,  or 
no  belief,  the  Bible  has  become  a  closed,  yea,  a 
sealed,  book.  It  is  not  what  it  used  to  be;  what 
it  has  become  they  do  not  know,  and  in  scorn 
or  sorrow  or  apathy  they  have  laid  it  aside. "(0 
There  may  be  some  exaggeration  in  this  statement, 
but  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  there  is  consider- 
able justification  for  the  complaint.  C.  F.  Kent 
makes  the  admission  that  "with  the  exception  of 
a  very  few  books,  like  the  Psalter,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  was  the  arsenal  of  the  old  militant 
theology,  has  been  unconsciously,  if  not  delib- 
erately, shunned  by  the  present  generation. "(2) 
And  the  words  of  Professor  Cheyne  are  aknost 
as  applicable  to-day  as  they  were  when  they 
were  first  written,  more  than  twenty  years  ago: 
"A  theory  is  already  propounded,  both  in  private 
and  in  a  naive  simple  way  in  sermons,  that  the 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  22:j 

Old  Testament  is  of  no  particular  moment,  all 
that  we  need  being  the  New  Testament,  which 
has  been  defended  by  our  valiant  apologists  and 
expounded  by  our  admirable  interpreters.  "(^) 

If  this  represents  in  any  sense  the  true  state  of 
affairs;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  words  of  the 
apostle  are  true,  that  ''every  scripture  inspired 
of  God  is  also  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  for  instruction  which  is  in  right- 
eousness, that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete, 
furnished  completely  unto  every  good  work"; 
and  if  these  words  are  applicable  to  the  Old 
Testament,  as  the  writer  intended  them  to  be— if, 
I  say,  these  things  are  true,  then  Christians 
appear  to  be  in  great  peril  of  losing  sight  of  one 
of  the  important  means  of  grace,  on  which  were 
nourished  Jesus  and  his  disciples,  and  millions  in 
former  generations,  and  for  the  restoration  of 
which  the  reformers  risked  their  very  lives. 

The  change  of  attitude  toward  the  Old  Testa- 
ment may  be  traced  to  a  variety  of  causes,  all 
of  which  affect  very  vitally  modern  religious 
thought  and  life.  There  are,  for  example,  many 
who  feel,  and  that  with  some  justice,  that  the 
New  Testament  is  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  sacred 
book  of  Christianity.  Wliy,  they  ask,  go  to  the 
Old  Testament  when  we  have  the  New  with  its 
more  complete  and  perfect  revelation?  But  this 
attitude  reflects  only  a  half  truth,  which  is  often 


?30  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

more  deceptive  than  an  out  and  out  falsehood. 
Certainly,  Christijuis  find  their  loftiest  inspiration 
in  the  study  of  the  life,  character,  and  teaching 
of  the  Master  and  of  his  disciples;  but  the  New 
Testament  has  by  no  means  displaced  the  Old. 
The  early  Christians  were  right  in  placing  it  beside 
the  New,  because  the  former  is  still  of  inestimable 
value.  Indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  understand  the 
New  Testament  properly  unless  one  has  an  ade- 
quate knowledge  of  the  Old.  Moreover,  there  are 
many  truths  taken  for  granted  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment for  a  biblical  statement  of  which  we  must 
turn  to  the  Old.  Will  the  revelation  of  the  nature 
and  character  of  God  contained  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ever  lose  its  doctrinal  value?  And  even  in 
cases  where  both  Testaments  cover  the  same  field 
the  Old  retains  a  peculiar  value.  True,  the  New 
Testament  presents  a  more  complete  and  perfect 
revelation,  but  there  are  few  New  Testament 
truths  which  have  not  their  roots  in  the  Old. 
The  former  presents  the  full-grown  revelation; 
nevertheless,  a  vast  number  of  people,  who  have 
not  yet  reached  a  state  of  perfection,  will  under- 
stand even  New  Testament  truths  more  readily 
as  they  are  presented  in  the  Old  Testament;  for 
here  they  can  see  the  truths  in  more  concrete 
form;  they  have  flesh  and  blood;  they  are  struggling 
for  victory  over  darkness  and  superstition.  Nearly 
all  the  great  and  vital  doctrines  of  the  Church, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  231 

though  founded  principally  on  the  New  Testament, 
are  illustrated,  are  made  more  real  and  human, 
become  more  impressive  and  forceful  as  we  study 
their  development  and  growth  under  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation. 

The  neglect  of  the  Old  Testament  is  due,  in 
the  second  place,  to  a  reaction  against  its  misuse 
by  former  generations.  (0  Puritanism  and  the 
theology  of  the  past  three  centuries  were  largely 
rooted  in  the  Old  Testament.  From  it  the  stern 
Puritans  drew  their  spirit  of  justice,  their  zeal 
for  righteousness,  and  their  uncompromising  con- 
demnation of  everything  that  appeared  wrong. 
Their  preachers  nobly  echoed  the  thmiders  of 
Sinai  and  the  denunciations  of  Elijah  and  Amos; 
but  in  doing  this  they  failed  to  recognize  the 
divine  love  back  of  the  prophetic  message,  and 
by  their  narrow  interpretation  of  the  letter,  and 
their  emphasis  upon  the  more  primitive  and  im- 
perfect teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  they  were 
often  led  to  extremes  that  were  neither  biblical 
nor  Christian.  Against  intolerance  and  persecu- 
tion the  human  heart  rebels,  and  with  it  comes 
a  feeling  of  resentment  against  the  cause.  Thus 
it  happened  that  the  reaction  against  Puritanism 
brought  with  it  a  disregard  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  was  followed  either  by  the  exaltation  of 
the  New  Testament,  whose  spirit  is  more  merci- 
ful and  tender,  or  by  hostility  against  the  entire 


333  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Bible  and  Christianity  as  a  whole.  This  abuse 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  due  in  large  part  to 
the  use  of  faulty,  or  erroneous,  methods  of  inter- 
pretation. And  since  there  seems  to  be  even  now 
a  tendency  in  some  places  to  defend  these  methods, 
which  are  out  of  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  sci- 
entific investigation  in  this  age,  many  intelligent 
men  have  come  to  look  with  su.si)icion  upon  a 
book  in  the  study  of  which  miscientific  methods 
continue  to  be  used. 

Another  important  cause  of  the  change  of 
attitude  toward  the  Old  Testament  is  to  be  fomid 
in  the  labors  expended  upon  the  Old  Testament 
by  able  scholars  in  the  pursuit  of  a  careful,  critical 
study  of  the  ancient  records.  As  has  been  stated 
in  another  connection,  these  studies  are  not  the 
outgrowth,  as  is  often  erroneously  assumed,  of  a 
desire  to  discredit  the  Bible,  to  displace  it  from 
the  heart  and  confidence  of  the  people,  or  to 
attack  its  teaching  or  inspiration.  'Tt  would  be 
a  most  hopeless  thing,"  says  W.  G.  Jordan,  "to 
regard  all  this  toil  as  the  outcome  of  skepticism 
and  vanity,  a  huge  specimen  of  perverse  ingenuity 
and  misdirected  effort. "(')  They  are  simply  the 
results  of  Protestantism  and  the  Renaissance. (®) 
But  whatever  the  spirit  back  of  the  study,  and 
whatever  the  gains  of  this  investigation,  one 
result  is  that  many  Christians  feel  perplexed  with 
regard  to  the  true  position  of  the  Old  Testament- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMKiNT  233 

What  of  its  claims?  What  of  its  inspiration? 
How  far  is  it  human  in  origin?  How  far  divine? 
These  and  similar  questions  are  asked  by  men 
everywhere.  Never  was  there  more  interest,  more 
inquiry,  and,  perhaps,  more  unrest  and  disquietude 
among  thoughtful  people. 

Surely,  it  is  high  time  to  realize  tliat  all  this 
investigation  has  had  no  harmful  effect  upon 
the  substance  of  the  divine  revelations  conveyed 
in  the  Old  Testament  records.  In  the  words  of 
Jordan,  'To  me,  with  my  faith  that  the  whole 
universe  is  filled  with  the  presence  of  the  living, 
self -revealing  God,  I  cannot  conceive  .  .  .  that  the 
most  severe  criticism  can  ever  banish  the  divine 
power  from  that  great  literature  which  is  one  of 
the  choicest  organs  of  its  manifest ations."(^)  As 
has  been  pointed  out  in  the  preceding  chapters, 
some  long-cherished  notions  and  interpretations 
have  been  overthrown;  to  some  extent  our  ideas 
concerning  its  literary  forms  have  had  to  be 
modified,  but  its  substance  has  not  been  disturbed. 
On  the  contrary,  it  has  come  to  be  seen  with  a 
clearness  unrecognized  before  that  it  bears  the 
indelible  stamp  of  God. 

This  being  the  case,  students  of  the  Bible 
should  return  to  a  more  just  appreciation  of  that 
part  of  Sacred  Scripture  which  is  so  intimately 
connected  with  the  training  of  Jesus  and  his 
disciples.     If  the  Old  Testament  contains  records 


234  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

and  interpretations  of  divine  revelations,  those 
who  claim  to  be  children  of  God  should  be  willing, 
yea,  anxious,  to  put  forth  some  efforts  to  familiar- 
ize themselves  adequately  with  these  records.  But 
the  sense  of  gratitude  and  appreciation  for  these 
self-revelations  of  God  is  not  the  only  reason  which 
should  prompt  the  Christian  to  turn  more  fre- 
quently to  the  pages  of  the  Old  Book.  A  much 
more  important  consideration  is  the  fact  that  the 
lessons  taught  in  the  Old  Testament  are  of  pro- 
found significance  to-day,  and  that  they  cannot 
be  neglected  without  serious  consequences.  Again, 
attention  may  be  called  to  the  fact  that  the 
Founder  of  Christianity  and  his  disciples  found 
nourishment  in  its  pages,  and  that  they  con- 
stantly exhorted  their  followers  to  do  the  same. 
Now,  Jesus  is  recognized  by  all  Christians  as  a 
model  worthy  of  imitation  in  every  relation  of 
life.  Would  it  not  be  well  to  imitate  him  in  the 
use  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures?  If  he  found 
in  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament  weapons  with 
which  to  put  to  flight  the  Evil  One,  might  not  we? 
Aside  from  these  general  considerations,  it  is 
easily  shown  that  every  part  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  full  of  teaching  which  is  of  the  highest 
value  even  in  the  twentieth  century  of  the  Christian 
era.  Consider,  for  example,  the  first  eleven  chap- 
ters of  Genesis,  around  which  much  controversy 
has  raged.     In  former  days  these  chapters  were 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  235 

thought  to  give  an  absolutely  accurate  account  of 
creation  and  the  early  history  of  mankind.  How- 
ever, various  lines  of  investigation  have  shown 
this  view  to  be  untenable.  "We  are  forced, 
therefore,"  says  a  recent  writer,  "to  the  con- 
clusion that,  though  the  writers  to  whom  we 
owe  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis  report 
faithfully  what  was  currently  believed  among 
the  Hebrews  respecting  the  early  history  of  man- 
kind, yet  there  was  much  they  did  not  know, 
and  could  not  take  cognizance  of.  These  chapters, 
consequently,  contain  no  account  of  the  real 
beginnings,  either  of  the  earth  itself,  or  of  man 
and  human  civilization  upon  it."(^)  All  this 
need  create  not  the  slightest  difficulty  for  one 
who  holds  the  scriptural  conception  of  the  nature 
and  purpose  of  the  biblical  writings.  It  is  true 
of  these  chapters,  as  of  other  parts  of  the  record, 
that  "the  only  care  of  the  prophetic  tradition  is 
to  bring  out  clearly  the  religious  origin  of  hu- 
manity."(")  If  anyone  is  in  search  of  accurate 
information  regarding  the  age  of  this  earth,  or 
its  relation  to  the  sun,  moon,  or  stars,  or  regarding 
the  exact  order  in  which  plants  and  animals  have 
appeared  upon  it,  he  should  go  to  recent  text- 
books in  astronomy,  geology,  and  paleontology. 
It  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  writers  of  Scripture 
to  impart  physical  instruction,  or  to  enlarge  the 
bounds  of   scientific   knowledge.    So  far  as  the 


336  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

scientific  or  historical  information  imparted  in 
theac  chapters  is  concerned,  it  is  of  httle  more 
vakie  than  the  similar  stories  of  other  nations. 
And  3'et  the  student  of  these  chapters  can  see  a 
striking  contrast  between  them  and  extra-biblical 
stories  describing  the  same  unknown  ages  handed 
down  from  pre-scicntific  centuries.  Here  comes 
to  view  the  uniqueness  of  the  Bible.  The  other 
traditions  are  of  interest  only  as  relics  of  a  by- 
gone past.  Not  so  the  biblical  statements;  they 
are  and  ever  will  be  of  inestimable  value,  not 
because  of  their  scientific  teaching,  but  because 
of  the  presence  of  sublime  religious  truth  in  the 
crude  forms  of  primitive  science.  If  anyone 
wishes  to  know  what  connection  the  world  has 
with  God,  if  he  seeks  to  trace  back  all  that  now 
is  to  the  very  fountain-head  of  life,  if  he  desires 
to  discover  some  unifying  principle,  some  illumi- 
nating purpose  in  the  history  of  the  earth,  he  may 
turn  to  these  chapters  as  his  safest  and,  indeed, 
only  guide  to  the  information  he  seeks. 

The  purpose  of  the  narratives  being  primarily 
religious,  it  is  only  natural  that  their  lessons 
should  be  religious  lessons.  The  one  supreme 
lesson  taught  throughout  the  entire  section  is 
*Tn  the  beginning,  God."  But  each  separate 
narrative  teaches  its  own  pecuHar  lessons.  The 
more  important  of  these  are  briefly  summarized 
bv  Driver  as  follows:  "The  narrative  of  creation 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  237 

sets  forth,  in  a  series  of  dignified  and  impressive 
pictures,  the  sovereignty  of  God;  his  priority  to 
and  separation  from  all  finite,  material  nature; 
his  purpose  to  constitute  an  ordered  cosmos, 
and  gradually  to  adapt  the  earth  to  become  the 
habitation  of  living  beings;  and  his  endowment 
of  man  with  the  peculiar,  unique  possession  of 
self-conscious  reason,  in  virtue  of  which  he  be- 
came capable  of  intellectual  and  moral  life,  and 
is  even  able  to  know  and  hold  communion  with 
his  Maker.  In  chapters  two  and  three  we  read, 
though,  again,  not  in  a  historical  but  in  a  pictorial 
and  symbolic  form,  how  man  was  once  innocent, 
how  he  became  conscious  of  a  moral  law,  and 
how  temptation  fell  upon  him  and  he  broke  that 
law.  The  fall  of  man,  the  great  and  terrible  truth, 
which  history  not  loss  than  individual  experience 
only  too  vividly  teaches  each  one  of  us,  is  thus 
impressively  set  before  us.  Man,  however,  though 
punished  by  God,  is  not  forsaken  by  him,  nor 
left  in  his  long  conflict  with  evil  without  hope 
of  victory.  In  chapter  four  the  increasing  power 
of  sin,  and  the  fatal  consequence  to  which,  if 
unchecked,  it  may  lead,  is  vividly  portrayed  in 
the  tragic  figure  of  Cain.  The  spirit  of  vindictive- 
ness  and  the  brutal  triumph  in  the  power  of  the 
sword  is  personified  in  Lamech.  In  the  narrative 
of  the  Flood  God's  wrath  against  sin  and  the 
divine  prerogative  of  mercy  are  alike  exemplified; 


238  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OE 

Noah  is  a  standing  illustration  of  the  truth  that 
'righteousness  delivereth  from  death/  and  God's 
dealings  with  him  after  the  Flood  form  a  striking 
declaration  of  the  purposes  of  grace  and  good 
will  with  which  God  regards  mankind.  The 
narrative  of  the  Tower  of  Babel  emphasizes 
Jehovah's  supremacy  in  the  world,  and  teaches 
how  the  self-exaltation  of  man  is  checked  by 
God."(  ) 

These  chapters  are  followed  by  the  stories  of 
the  patriarchs.  Missionaries  say — and  experience 
at  home  has  confirmed  the  claim — that  the  pa- 
triarchal narratives  are  of  inestimable  value  to 
impress  lessons  of  the  reality  and  providence  of 
God,  and  to  encourage  the  exercise  of  faith  and 
confidence  in  him.  There  is  nothing  that  can  be 
substituted  for  them  in  religious  instruction.  Lack 
of  space  will  not  permit  to  point  out  in  detail 
the  educational  value  of  these  documents;  how- 
ever, in  passing,  mention  may  be  made  of  the 
fact  that  Professor  W.  W.  White  enumerates 
twenty-one  Christian  virtues  that  are  illustrated 
and  enforced  in  the  life  of  Abraham. (")  He 
was  (1)  steadfast,  (2)  resolute,  (3)  prudent,  (4) 
tactful,  (5)  candid,  (6)  kind,  (7)  self-controlled, 
(8)  obliging,  (9)  self-denying,  (10)  condescending, 
(11)  unselfish,  (12)  peaceable,  (13)  hospitable, 
(14)  courteous,  (15)  humble,  (16)  thankful,  (17) 
reverent,  (18)  prayerful,  (19)  worshipful,  (20)  faith- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  239 

ful,  (21)  obedient.  Not  one  iota  of  their  value 
for  purposes  of  instruction  in  righteousness  have 
these  records  lost  because  doubt  has  been  cast 
upon  their  absolute  historical  accuracy.  "Abra- 
ham is  still  the  hero  of  righteousness  and  faith; 
Lot  and  Laban,  Sarah  and  Rebekah,  Isaac,  Jacob, 
and  Joseph,  in  their  characters  and  experiences, 
are  still  m  different  ways  types  of  our  own  selves, 
and  still  in  one  way  or  another  exemplify  the 
ways  in  which  God  deals  with  the  individual  soul, 
and  the  manner  in  which  the  individual  soul 
ought,  or  ought  not,  to  respond  to  his  leadings."(") 
What  if  some  of  these  figures  pass  before  us  on 
the  stage  rather  than  in  real  life,  do  they  on  that 
account  lose  their  vividness,  their  truthfulness, 
their  force?  "If,"  says  J.  E.  McFadyen, (»^)  "it 
should  be  made  highly  probable  that  the  stories 
were  not  strictly  historical,  what  should  we  then 
have  to  say?  We  should  then  have  to  say  that 
their  religious  value  was  still  extremely  high. 
The  religious  truth  to  which  they  give  vivid  and 
inunortal  expression  would  remain  the  same. 
The  story  of  Abraham  would  still  illustrate  the 
trials  and  the  rewards  of  faith.  The  story  of 
Jacob  would  still  illustrate  the  power  of  sin  to 
haunt  and  determine  a  man's  career,  and  the 
power  of  God  to  humble,  discipline,  and  purify 
a  self-confident  nature.  The  story  of  Joseph 
would   still   illustrate  how  fidehty  amid   tempta- 


240  THE  CHRISTIAN  A^EW  OE 

tion,  wrong,  and  sorrow  is  crowned  at  last  with 
glory  and  honor.  The  spiritual  value  of  these 
and  similar  talcs  is  not  lost,  even  when  their 
historical  value  is  reduced  to  a  minimum,  for  the 
truths  which  they  illustrate  are  truths  of  uni- 
versal experience."  The  present  writer  is  con- 
vinced that  even  as  historical  documents  these 
narratives  are  of  immense  value.  Nevertheless, 
it  may  be  well  to  remind  ourselves  again  that  the 
apostle  does  not  point  his  readers  to  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  for  instruction  in  ancient 
history,  but  he  claims  that  they  are  profitable 
"for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  which  is  in  righteousness";  and  these 
records,  whatever  their  historical  shortcomings 
may  be,  are  most  assuredly  profitable  for  all 
these  pur}:)osos. 

The  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
a  continuous  illustration  of  the  reality  of  a  Divine 
Providence,  by  revealing  on  almost  every  page 
the  hand  of  God  in  human  history.  Only  as  we 
trace  the  history  of  the  Hebrews  can  we  under- 
stand the  unfolding  in  the  mind  of  man  under 
the  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  of  the  great 
religious  ideas  and  conceptions  which  have  become 
the  mainspring  of  human  progress;  the  ideas 
which  may  be  seen  in  crystallized  form  in  modern 
Judaism,  in  perverted  form  in  Mohammedanism, 
and  in  expanded  and  spiritualized  form  in  Chris- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  241 

tianity.  Preeminent  among  these  conceptions  is 
the  idea  of  one  personal  holy  and  righteous  God. 
The  Hebrews  were  also  the  first  to  teach  man 
that  the  supreme  goal  of  life  is  righteousness,  and 
thus  they  became  the  ethical  teachers  of  the 
human  race.  They  first  gave  objective  expression 
to  pure  and  lofty  ethics  in  law.  To-day  the 
principles  of  Hebrew  legislation  are  still  the  bone 
and  marrow  of  the  world's  greatest  legal  systems. 
Though  the  Romans  may  be,  to  a  large  extent, 
responsible  for  the  form  which  modern  legal 
systems  have  adopted,  the  substance  must  be 
traced  back  to  Hebrew  legislation. 

Moreover,  the  Hebrews  prepared  the  way  for 
Christianity.  Jesus  himself  recognized  that  the 
faith  he  proclaimed  was  not  a  new  creation. 
"Think  not,"  said  he,  "that  I  came  to  destroy  the 
law  or  the  prophets:  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but 
to  fulfill. "CO  He  came  to  fill  up,  to  spiritualize 
and  intensify  the  religious  and  ethical  teaching  of 
the  great  leaders  of  the  Hebrews.  Men  needed 
the  preliminary  training  of  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation  before  they  were  ready  to  appreciate 
the  fuller  revelation  in  and  through  Jesus  the 
Christ,  and  Christianity  could  never  have  tri- 
umphed had  it  not  been  for  the  preparatory  work 
of  the  religious  and  ethical  teachers  of  the  He- 
brews, whose  activity  was  very  largely  determined 
by   the   course   of  the   nation's   history.    Again, 


242  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Jesus,  according  to  the  flesh,  was  a  descendant  of 
Abraham,  reared  in  a  Jewish  home,  and  under 
Jewish  mfluences.  He  studied  Jewish  Uterature 
and  Jewish  ideals  were  held  up  before  him.  All 
this  must  have  made  some  impression  upon  the 
mind  and  life  of  the  Master.  He  and  his  teaching 
can  be  understood  only  if  he  is  studied  in  the 
light  of  Jewish  thought  and  Jewish  religion  reach- 
ing back  to  the  very  beginning  of  Hebrew  history. 
All  this  shows  how  important  is  the  study  of  the 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  to  one 
who  desires  to  appreciate  fully  the  Christian 
religion. 

It  is  impossible  to  estimate  too  highly  the 
eternal  value  of  the  devotional  literature  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  illustrated,  for  example,  in 
the  book  of  Psalms.  Well  has  it  been  said, 
''What  the  heart  is  in  man,  that  is  the  Psalter 
in  the  Bible."(''')  The  Psalms  touch  the  heart, 
because  they  are  the  expressions  of  the  deepest 
feelmgs  of  the  writers;  and  because  these  lyrics 
express  personal  experiences  they  may  be,  and 
are,  used  even  to-day  to  express  the  various  emo- 
tions of  joy,  sorrow,  hope,  fear,  anticipation,  etc., 
of  persons  who  live  even  on  a  higher  plane  than 
did  their  authors.  "Wliat  is  there,"  says  Richard 
Hooker, (*")  "necessary  for  man  to  know  which 
the  Psalms  are  not  able  to  teach?  Heroical 
magnanimity,  exquisite  justice,  grave  moderation, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  243 

exact  wisdom,  repentance  unfeigned,  unwearied 
patience,  the  mysteries  of  God,  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  the  terrors  of  wrath,  the  comforts  of  grace, 
the  works  of  Providence  over  this  world,  and  the 
promised  joys  of  that  world  which  is  to  come; 
all  good,  necessarily  to  be  either  known  or  done, 
or  had,  this  one  celestial  fountain  yieldeth;  let 
there  be  any  grief  or  disaster  incident  to  the  soul 
of  man,  any  wound  or  sickness  named  for  which 
there  is  not  in  this  treasure-house  a  present  com- 
fortal^le  remedy  at  all  times  ready  to  be  found." 

Manifold  indeed  are  the  contents  of  the  Psalter; 
manifold  the  moods  of  the  authors;  and  manifold 
the  experiences  they  express.  But  there  is  one 
bond  which  imites  them  all  into  one  living  unity, 
namely,  a  sublime  faith  in  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
Israel.  This  variety  on  the  one  hand,  and  essential 
unity  on  the  other,  are  the  qualities  which  have 
given  to  the  book  in  all  ages  a  unique  place  in 
the  religious  life  of  the  individual  and  of  the 
Church  of  God.  With  full  justice  says  Perowne :(") 
"No  single  book  of  Scripture,  not  even  the  New 
Testament,  has,  perhaps,  ever  taken  such  hold 
on  the  heart  of  Christendom.  None,  if  we  dare 
judge,  unless  it  be  the  Gospels,  has  had  so  large 
an  influence  in  molding  the  affections,  sustaining 
the  hopes,  purifying  the  faith  of  believers.  With 
its  words,  rather  than  with  their  own,  they  have 
come   before   God.     In   these   they  have   uttered 


244  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

their  desires,  their  fears,  their  confessions,  their 
aspirations,  their  sorrows,  their  joys,  their  thanks- 
givings. By  these  their  devotion  has  been  kindled 
and  their  hearts  comforted.  The  Psalter  has  been 
in  the  truest  sense  the  prayer  book  of  both  Jews 
and  Christians." 

Equally  profitable  is  the  study  of  the  Wisdom 
literature.  The  wise  men  accepted  the  great 
religious  truths  proclaimed  by  the  prophets;  it 
was  their  business  to  apply  them  to  the  details 
of  everyday  life,  and  instruct  their  contemporaries 
in  that  application.  They  did  an  important  and 
necessary  work;  they  pointed  out  constantly  and 
persistently  that  religion  cannot  be  separated 
from  the  daily  life.  But  the  wise  men  were 
dealing  with  persons  who  had  hardly  gone  beyond 
the  childhood  stage  in  things  religious  and  ethical, 
hence  they  must  put  the  most  profomid  truths 
in  the  simplest  possible  form.  They  must  abstain, 
as  far  as  possible,  from  all  speculation,  and  con- 
fine themselves  to  simple,  practical  precepts  which 
would  appeal  to  the  ordinary  practical  common 
sense  of  the  hearer.  "The  great  desire  of  the 
sages,"  says  Marshall,  "was  to  reduce  the  lofty 
theistic  morality  which  underlies  Mosaism  to  brief, 
pithy  sayings,  easily  remembered  and  readily 
applicable  to  the  everyday  life  of  man."(*^)  Cer- 
tainly, in  time  they  would  be  compelled  to  rise 
above  simple  precepts  and  try  to  solve  some  of 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  245 

the  more  perplexing  problems  of  life;  on  the 
other  hand,  there  would  always  be  a  demand  for 
the  more  simple  sayings  of  these  moral  guides. 
The  Old  Testament  contains  specimens  of  these 
different  productions  of  wisdom  activity.  The 
book  of  Proverbs  is  a  collection  of  the  more  simple, 
practical  precepts,  while  the  books  of  Job  and 
Ecclesiastes  illustrate  speculative  wisdom. 

The  charge  has  sometimes  been  made  against 
the  book  of  Proverbs  that  it  is  not  truly  religious, 
that  it  moves  on  a  lower  plane,  and  contemplates 
lower  aims  than  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; but  this  is  only  a  half  truth.  That  the 
book  differs  from  other  books  is  undoubtedly  true, 
but  that  is  due  to  the  purpose  of  its  author.  He 
did  not  mean  to  collect  prophetic  discourses  or 
sublime  religious  lyrics,  but  those  simple  precepts 
of  life  which,  though  simple,  are  ever  needed  for 
the  proper  conduct  of  man.  There  are  two 
phases  of  religion:  the  one  internal,  the  religious 
experience;  the  other  external,  the  religious  life. 
The  two  go  together,  though  at  times  the  one, 
at  times  the  other,  may  be  emphasized.  The 
authors  of  the  Proverbs  emphasized  chiefly  the 
latter.  They  teach  the  most  difficult  of  all 
lessons:  how  to  practice  religion;  how  to  fulfill 
the  duties  and  overcome  the  temptations  of 
everyday  life.  But  these  wise  men  rested  their 
practical  teaching  upon  a  religious   basis.      Their 


34fi  THE  CHEISTIAX  VIEW  OP 

religion  may  not  be  on  a  New  Testament  level, 
but  in  this  they  resemble  other  Old  Testament 
writings;  their  conceptions  of  reward  and  punish- 
ment may  be  crude,  and  at  times  materialistic, 
but  this  peculiarity  they  share  with  all  those 
saints  of  Israel  whose  vision  is  limited  to  this 
world. 

Underneath  all  their  teaching  there  is  a  firm 
belief  in  the  existence  of  a  righteous  God  and  the 
reality  of  his  rule  over  the  world,  as  also  in  the 
other  great  religious  verities  taught  by  the  proph- 
ets. Far  from  disregarding  religion,  the  writers 
of  the  Proverbs  sought  to  make  it  the  controlling 
motive  of  life  and  conduct.  A  profound  religious 
spirit  pervades  the  whole  book;  but  in  addition 
there  are  many  passages  which  give  definite 
expression  to  the  lofty  religious  conceptions  of 
the  wise  men.(*'')  Nevertheless,  as  is  natural  in 
view  of  the  purpose  of  the  wise  men,  greater 
stress  is  laid  upon  ethics,  the  practice  of  religion. 
Nothing  and  no  relation  of  life  seems  to  have 
escaped  the  attention  of  the  writers.  Precepts  are 
given  concerning  ordinary  everyday  conduct,  the 
relations  of  men  to  their  fellows,  domestic  rela- 
tions and  happiness,  national  life  and  the  proper 
attitude  toward  the  government,  and  other  rela- 
tions and  interests  of  life.  The  permanent  value 
of  the  book  is  suggested  in  these  words  of 
Davison :(-")  "For  the  writers  of  Proverbs  religion 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  247 

means  good  sense,  religion  means  mastery  of 
affairs,  religion  means  strength  and  manliness  and 
success,  religion  means  a  well-furnished  intellect 
employing  the  best  means  to  accomplish  the 
highest  ends.  There  is  a  healthy,  vigorous  tone 
about  this  kind  of  teaching  which  is  never  out 
of  date,  but  which,  human  nature  being  what  it  is, 
is  only  too  apt  to  disappear  in  the  actual  pre- 
sentation of  religion  in  the  Church  on  earth." 

From  simple  practical  precepts  the  wise  men 
rose  to  speculation.  Their  speculative  philosophy 
is  theistic,  for  it  starts  from  the  conviction  that 
there  is  a  personal  God.  The  best  specimen  of 
this  type  of  Wisdom  literature  is  the  book  of 
Job,  which  deals  with  the  perplexing  problem  of 
evil  and  suffering.  The  book  recounts  how  Job, 
a  man  of  exemplary  piety,  was  overtaken  by  an 
unprecedented  series  of  calamities,  and  it  reports 
the  debate  between  Job  and  other  speakers  to 
which  the  occasion  is  supposed  to  have  given 
rise.  The  experiences  of  the  perfect  Job  raised 
the  perplexing  question.  How  can  the  suffering 
of  a  righteous  man  be  harmonized  with  the  belief 
in  a  holy  and  just  God?  The  popular  view,  re- 
flected in  the  greater  portion  of  the  Old  Testament, 
was  that  suffering  was  always  punishment  for 
sin,  prosperity  reward  for  piety.  Such  belief  seemed 
in  accord  with  the  righteousness  of  Jehovah. 
Undoubtedly,   exceptions   to   the   rule   might   be 


248  THE  CIIEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

noted,  but  as  long  as  the  individual  was  looked 
upon  simply  as  an  atom  in  the  national  unit, 
the  apparent  inequalities  in  the  fortunes  of  indi- 
vidiuUs  would  not  constitute  a  pressing  problem. 
When,  however,  especially  through  the  teaching 
of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  the  individual  received 
proper  recognition,  an  experience  like  that  of 
Job  was  bound  to  create  difficulties,  for  the  suffer- 
ing of  a  righteous  man  would  seem  to  point  to 
unfairness  on  the  part  of  God.  That  this  per- 
plexity was  felt  is  seen  from  allusions  in  the 
prophetic  books.  At  last  the  time  came  when  a 
wise  man  in  Israel  sought  to  solve  the  problem 
in  the  light  of  the  religious  knowledge  he  possessed. 
The  probl(>m,  then,  tliscussed  by  the  author  of 
the  book  of  Job  is.  How  can  the  sufferings  of  a 
righteous  man  be  harmonized  with  belief  in  a 
holy  and  righteous  God?  Various  solutions  of 
this  problem  are  suggested  in  different  parts  of 
the  book:  (1)  The  solution  of  the  prologue — 
Suffering  is  a  test  of  character.  (2)  The  solution 
of  the  friends — Suffering  is  always  punishment 
for  sin.  (3)  The  solution  of  Job — Job  struggles 
long  and  persistently  with  the  problem;  a  few 
times  he  seems  to  have  a  glimpse  of  a  possible 
straightening-out  of  the  present  ine(iualities  after 
death,  but  it  is  only  a  glimpse;  he  always  sinks 
back  to  a  feeling  of  uncertainty  and  perplexity. 
His  general  attitude  is  that  there  must  be  some- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  240 

thing  out  of  gear  in  the  world,  for  the  righteousness 
of  God  cannot  be  discerned  as  things  arc  going 
now.  (4)  The  solution  of  Elihu — P^lihu  agnies 
with  tlic  friends  tliat  suffering  is  closely  connected 
with  sin;  but  he  emphasizes  more  than  they  the 
disciplinary  purpose  of  suffering,  which,  he  points 
out,  is  the  voice  of  God  warning  men  to  return 
to  Him.  (5)  The  solution  of  Jehovah — The 
whole  universe  is  an  unfathomable  mystery,  in 
which  the  evil  is  no  more  perplexing  than  the 
good.  In  the  presence  of  all  mysteries  the  proper 
attitude  is  one  of  humble  submission.  (6)  The 
solution  of  the  epilogue — Returns  to  the  opinion 
of  the  friends,  for  it  teaches  that  righteousness 
will  sooner  or  later  be  rewarded  with  prosperity 
even  in  this  world. 

It  is  chiefly  in  the  solution  of  this  age-long 
problem  suggested  by  the  author  of  the  book  of 
Job  that  the  real  value  of  the  discussion  lies. 
The  author  nowhere  states  which  of  the  above- 
mentioned  conclusions  he  accepts  as  true.  As  a 
result,  he  has  been  charged  with  raising  a  pro- 
found problem,  discussing  it  with  relentless  logic, 
and  then  leaving  it  unsolved.  This,  however,  is 
not  quite  fair  to  this  ancient  wise  man.  "With 
a  touch  too  artistic  to  permit  him  to  descend  to 
a  homiletic  attitude,  the  poet  has  shown  that  his 
solution  of  life's  problem  is  a  religious  one.  He 
had  portrayed  with  great  power  the  inability  of 


250  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

man's  mind  to  comprehend  the  universe  or  to 
understand  why  man  must  suffer;  but  he  makes 
Job,  his  hero,  find  in  a  vision  of  God  the  secret 
of  Hfo.  Job's  questions  remain  unanswered,  but 
now  that  lie  knows  God,  he  is  content  to  let  them 
remain  unanswered.  He  cannot  solve  life's  riddle, 
but  is  content  to  trust  God,  of  whose  goodness 
he  is  convinced,  and  who,  Job  is  sure,  knows  the 
answer.  The  poet  has  thus  taught  that  it  is  in 
the  realm  of  religion,  and  not  in  that  of  the  in- 
tellect, that  the  solution  of  life's  mysteries  is  to 
be  found."(^^)  Even  Christianity  has  no  other 
solution  of  the  problem  to  offer;  it  must  still 
insist  upon  a  solution  of  faith,  with  a  lofty  con- 
ception of  God,  and  a  vision  of  life  broad  enough 
to  include  eternity,  when  the  apparent  inequal- 
ities of  this  life  may  be  adjusted  by  a  loving 
and  righteous  God. 

The  book  of  Ecclesiastes,  dealing  with  the 
perplexities  of  life  in  general,  full  of  pessimism 
and  skepticism,  is  not  without  its  permanent 
value.  The  author  of  the  book  has  passed  through 
many  disappointments,  and  his  spirit  has  grown 
somewhat  skeptical  and  pessimistic.  Everything 
has  proved  vanity:  riches,  pleasure,  honor,  even 
the  search  for  wisdom;  and  he  is  not  sure  con- 
cerning his  destiny  after  death.  But  over  against 
his  experiences  in  life  there  is  a  faith  in  God  who 
governs   the   world.     The   book,   which    portrays 


THE  OLD  TP]STAMENT  251 

the  struggle  between  experience  and  faith,  has 
aptly  been  called  "a  cry  for  light."  The  author 
does  not  see  the  light  clearly,  though  here  and 
there  he  may  have  a  glimpse  of  it.  The  real 
perplexity  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  author's 
horizon  is  bounded  by  the  grave.  In  this  life  he 
sees  no  hope,  therefore  he  looks  with  longing  for 
a  possible  reckoning  in  an  after  life;  but  it  remains 
a  hope  and  cry,  it  never  grows  into  a  conviction. 
The  more  significant  is  the  retention  of  his  faith 
in  God.  He  is  conscious  of  a  moral  order  in  the 
world,  though  its  operation  is  often  frustrated; 
he  is  aware  of  cases  in  which  the  God-fearing 
man  had  an  advantage  over  others.  Hence,  with 
all  his  uncertainty  and  doubt,  he  holds  that  it 
is  his  duty,  and  the  duty  of  everyone  else,  to  fear 
God  and  keep  his  commandments;  God,  somehow, 
will  care  for  the  mysteries  and  perplexities  of  life. 
Even  the  Song  of  Songs,  or  Song  of  Solomon, 
often  an  object  of  ridicule,  when  rightly  inter- 
preted, is  seen  to  bring  suggestive  lessons  to  the 
present  age.  The  book  owes  its  place  in  the 
canon  of  Sacred  Scripture  to  the  allegorical  inter- 
pretation given  to  it  from  the  earliest  times.  The 
Jews  interpreted  it  as  picturing  the  close  relation 
existing  between  Jehovah  and  Israel;  the  Chris- 
tians, as  picturing  the  intimate  fellowship  between 
Christ  and  his  bride,  the  Church.  At  present  it 
is  quite  generally  held   that   this  interpretation 


253  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

docs  not  do  justice  to  the  primary  purpose  of 
the  book;  but  as  to  its  original  purpose  two  differ- 
ent views  are  held.  According  to  both  interpreta- 
tions, the  subject  of  the  book  is  love — human 
loves  the  differences  of  opinion  are  with  reference 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  subject  is  treated. 
Some  think  that  the  book  is  simply  a  collection 
of  love  or  wedding  songs,  all  independent  of  one 
another.  Others  feel  that  there  are  too  many 
evidences  of  real  unity  in  it  to  permit  this  inter- 
pretation; they  see  in  the  book  a  didactic  drama 
or  melodrama,  the  aim  of  the  author  being  the 
glorification  of  true  human  love. 

The  drama  centers  around  three  principal 
characters — Solomon,  the  Shunammite  maiden, 
and  her  shepherd  lover.  The  book  relates  how 
the  maiden,  surprised  by  the  king  and  his  train, 
was  brought  to  the  palace  in  Jerusalem,  where 
the  king  hoped  to  win  her  affections  and  to  in- 
duce her  to  exchange  her  rustic  home  for  the 
enjoyment  and  honor  the  court  life  affords.  She 
has,  however,  already  pledged  her  heart  to  a 
young  sho])herd;  and  the  admiration  and  blan- 
dishments which  the  king  lavishes  upon  her  are 
powerless  to  make  her  forget  him.  In  the  end 
she  is  permitted  to  return  to  her  mountain  home, 
where  at  the  close  of  the  poem  the  lovers  appear 
hand  in  hand  and  express,  in  warm,  glowing 
words,    the    superiority    of   genuine    spontaneous 


THE  OLIO  TESTAMENT  253 

affection.  The  real  aim  of  the  book,  therefore, 
seems  to  be  to  glorify  true  love,  and  more  specif- 
ically, true  betrothed  love,  which  remains  stead- 
fast even  in  the  most  dangerous  and  most  seductive 
situations. 

In  this  age,  when  the  responsibility  of  the 
individual  Christian  and  of  the  Christian  Church 
toward  the  practical,  social,  religious,  and  moral 
problems  and  evils  is  recognized  more  than  at 
any  other  previous  time,  the  prophetic  literature 
is  worthy  of  the  most  careful  study  on  the  part 
of  all  Christians  who  recognize  and  who  are 
willing  to  meet  their  obligations  to  their  day  and 
generation.  The  prophets  of  old  met  in  the 
strength  of  God,  and  at  the  divine  impulse, 
the  problems  and  evils  of  their  own  age.  They 
had  to  face  the  problems  of  materialism  and  com- 
mercialism; the  evils  resulting  from  the  accumula- 
tion of  wealth,  power,  and  resources  in  the  hands 
of  a  few;  very  serious  economic  problems;  cruelty, 
oppression,  arrogance  on  the  part  of  the  rich  pro- 
prietors; corruption  in  government  and  in  the 
administration  of  justice;  they  had  to  grapple 
with  a  cold,  heartless  formalism  that  threatened 
to  destroy  pure,  spiritual  religion.  Against  these 
evils  and  wrongs  the  prophets  of  old  raised  their 
hands  and  voices.  "When  the  old  tribal  customs 
and  bonds  were  weakened  by  the  growth  of  cities 
and  the  cultivation  of  commerce  they  saw  that 


254  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

society  must  be  set  upon  a  moral  basis  or  suffer 
destruction.  When  the  nation  itself  was  about 
to  be  broken  to  pieces  they  saw  in  this  a  call 
for  a  deeper  spiritual  life.  .  .  .  They  were  in- 
terested in  politics,  but  not  as  a  profession  in 
wliich  to  show  their  skill,  or  out  of  which  they 
might  gain  wealth  or  glory.  Politics  for  them 
meant  simply  the  life  of  the  nation  in  its  relation 
to  God  and  to  the  great  outside  world.  They 
were  social  reformers.  To  the  earlier  prophets 
man  was  regarded  always  as  a  member  of  society 
rather  than  as  an  independent  individual.  ...  In 
opposition  to  a  showy  ritual,  they  set  up  their 
demands  for  justice  between  man  and  man."(^^) 
Surely,  it  is  a  part  of  the  Christian's  duty  to  do 
his  share  toward  a  Christian  solution  of  the  social 
and  religious  problems  of  our  day.  We  can 
hardly  claim  to  have  reached  the  full  stature  of 
Christian  manhood  or  womanhood  until  we  have 
acquired  the  knowledge  and  power  to  cope  with 
these  difficulties  in  the  spirit  of  the  Master  and 
with  the  methods  best  adapted  to  the  Christian- 
izing of  modern  society.  In  these  our  efforts  to 
lift  humanity  nearer  to  God,  or  to  bring  God 
nearer  to  humanity,  we  may  learn  much  from 
the  prophets  of  old. 

To  sum  up  the  results  of  our  study:  As  Chris- 
tians we  may  find  our  loftiest  inspiration  in  the 
study  of  the  life,  the  character,  and  the  teachings 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  255 

of  the  Master,  and  of  the  words  of  his  disciples. 
But  the  New  Testament  is  Uttle  more  than  a 
quarter  of  the  Bible.  In  the  preceding  pages  the 
attempt  has  been  made  to  emphasize  the  permanent 
value  of  the  larger  division  of  the  Sacred  Book. 
It  has  been  carefully  scrutinized,  tested  in  furnaces 
heated  seven  times,  but  out  of  the  fire  it  has 
come  bearing  the  stamp  of  God,  testifying  more 
confidently  than  ever  before  that  God  in  olden 
times  spake  unto  the  fathers,  and  that  in  its 
pages  may  be  found  records  and  interpretations 
of  these  revelations.  The  features  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  assure  to  it  a  permanent  place 
in  religious  thought  and  life  may  l^  briefly  indi- 
cated as  follows : 

The  Old  Testament  will  always  prove  attractive 
as  literature.  The  more  we  know  of  other  lit- 
eratures of  antiquity,  the  more  evident  it  becomes 
that  even  from  the  literary  viewpoint  the  Old 
Testament  is  far  superior  to  any  other  literary 
remains  of  ancient  civilization.  'Tf  the  inimitable 
fresluiess  of  life  is  preserved  in  Homer,  it  is  not 
less  preserved  in  the  epic  stories  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; while  the  still  more  intangible  simplicity  of 
the  idyl  is  found  perfect  in  Ruth  and  Tobit,  the 
orations  of  Deuteronomy  are  as  noble  models  as 
the  orations  of  Cicero.  Read  by  the  side  of  the 
poetry  of  the  Psalms,  the  lyrics  of  Pindar  seem 
almost    provincial.    The    imaginative    poetry    of 


256  THE  CHRISTIAN  YIEW  OF 

the  Greeks  is  perfect  in  its  own  sphere,  but  by 
the  Hebrew  prophets  as  bold  an  imagination  is 
carried  into  the  mysteries  of  the  spiritual  world. 
If  the  philosophy  of  Plato  and  his  successors  has 
a  special  interest  as  the  starting  point  for  a  pro- 
gression of  thought  still  going  on  as  modern 
science,  yet  the  field  of  biblical  wisdom  offers  an 
attraction  of  a  different  kind,  in  a  progression 
of  thought  which  has  run  its  full  round  and  has 
reached  a  position  of  rest.  .  .  .  And  in  the  inner 
circle  of  the  world's  masterpieces,  in  which  all 
kinds  of  literary  influences  meet,  the  Bible  has 
placed  Job,  the  Isaiahan  Rhapsody,  .  .  .  unsur- 
passed and  unsurpassable. "(^^) 

From  the  standpoint  of  history  the  Old  Testa- 
ment still  occupies,  and  ever  will  occupy,  a  unique 
position.  Important  as  are  the  contributions  of 
archaeology,  the  student  of  ancient  history  can 
by  no  means  spare  the  testimony  of  the  Bible. 
The  Old  Testament  is  still  the  main  source  of 
information  for  the  national  history  of  the  He- 
brew people,  and  it  is  and  will  remain  a  very 
important  secondary  source  for  the  history  of 
the  surroimrling  nations.  It  also  retains  a  unique 
place  in  the  history  of  religion,  for  without  it 
the  religious  development  of  the  Jews  could 
not  be  traced;  and  since  the  Jewish  religion 
is  the  foundation  upon  which  Christianity  was 
developed,    ignorance     of    that     earlier    religion 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  257 

would  prove  a  serious  handicap  to  the  student  of 
Christianity. 

The  Old  Tcstaiuent  will  always  be  of  value 
because  of  its  intimate  connection  with  the  New. 
From  the  purely  linguistic  standpoint  a  knowledge 
of  the  former  is  essential  for  an  understanding 
of  the  latter.  New  Testament  modes  of  thought 
and  expression  are  inexplicable  without  a  study 
of  the  Old.  There  are  many  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  taken  from  the  Old  and  referring  back 
to  it  which  cannot  be  properly  understood  unless 
we  examine  them  in  their  original  context.  But 
the  connection  is  even  more  vital,  for  in  a  very 
real  sense  the  new  dispensation  has  its  roots  in 
the  old.  It  is  one  kingdom  of  God  that  is  the 
subject  of  the  history  in  both,  and  the  Bible  as 
a  whole  can  never  be  rightly  understood  until 
the  two  Testaments  are  comprehended  in  their 
unity  and  harmony,  for  they  are  joined  in  in- 
separable unity  in  Christ  himself. 

Most  important  of  all,  the  Old  Testament 
retains,  and  ever  will  retain,  a  unique  religious 
value.  It  will  ever  be  important  in  the  field  of 
doctrine.  True,  the  New  Testament  is  the  primary 
source  for  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  but  there 
are  some  thmgs  which  the  New  Testament  takes 
for  granted,  and  for  which  we  must  turn  to  the 
Old.  Will  the  revelation  of  the  nature  and 
character  of  God  contained  in  the  Old  Testament 


258  THE  CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

ever  lose  its  doctrinal  value? — God,  a  spirit, 
personal,  with  a  clearly  defined  moral  character, 
in  his  mercy  condescending  to  enter  into  covenant 
relations  with  his  creatures,  loving  man  and 
desiring  to  be  loved  by  him,  his  anger  aroused 
by  sui,  but  gracious  toward  the  repenting  sinner? 
Again,  have  those  early  chapters  of  Genesis  lost 
their  doctrinal  value?  Has  anyone  supplied  a 
substitute  for  the  simple  "In  the  beginning  God 
created  heaven  and  earth"? 

The  Old  Testament  is  of  permanent  religious 
value  because  of  its  keen  insight  into  human 
nature.  The  Bible  has  been  called  "the  family 
album  of  the  Holy  God";  we  might  compare  it, 
rather,  to  a  picture  gallery.  What  a  variety! 
Everywhere  we  see  them  flesh  and  blood!  Why 
is  it  they  impress  us  so?  Is  it  not  because  the 
pictures  are  so  true  to  human  nature  that  in 
spite  of  the  difference  in  time,  place,  and  circum- 
stances they  may  serve  even  us  as  mirrors? 

The  Old  Testament  will  always  deserve  study 
from  the  religious  standpoint,  because  of  the 
ideal  of  character  it  sets  before  us.  "It  presents 
to  our  souls  characters  that  are  supremely  worthy 
of  our  reverence  because  consciously  centered  in 
God  and  full  of  his  power.  It  permits  us  to  share 
the  enthusiasm  of  the  men  who  discovered  the 
fundamentals  of  our  religion  and  the  character 
of  our  God.     It  is  indispensable  to  complete  the 


TTTE  OLD  TESTAMENT  259 

disciplesliip  of  Christ,  because  it  is  the  creator 
of  the  mold  which  his  soul  expanded. "(^)  Its 
types  of  character  may  lack  the  finer  graces, 
yet  they  are  types  we  may  do  well  to  imitate. 
Will  the  lives  of  Abraham,  Joseph,  Samuel,  Elijah, 
David,  and  many  others  ever  lose  their  lessons? 
What  sublime  ideals  even  the  Christian  minister 
may  find  in  the  lives  of  the  prophets! 

Will  we  ever  get  beyond  the  moral  duties  which 
are,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  obligatory 
upon  man?  Purity  of  thought,  sincerity  of  mo- 
tive, singleness  of  purpose,  truthfulness,  honesty, 
justice,  generosity,  love — these  are  some  of  the 
virtues  which  again  and  again  are  in  the  strong- 
est language  insisted  upon  in  the  pages  of  the 
Old  Book.  Indeed,  the  Old  Testament  empha- 
sizes the  loftiest  ideals  of  human  life  and  society, 
anticipating  the  time  when  in  all  the  world  the 
universal  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  common 
brotherhood  of  man  would  be  realized.  In  an 
editorial  in  the  Expository  Times,  commenting 
upon  a  paper  read  before  the  First  International 
Moral  Education  Congress,  are  found  these  sug- 
gestive words:  "It  is  when  the  teaching  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  simple,  frank,  and  historical 
that  it  becomes  the  best  text-book  of  ethics  in 
the  world,  for  it  possesses  these  two  incomparable 
advantages — it  is  full  of  humanity,  and  it  is  full 
of  variety.    The  epics  of  Joseph  and  David,  the 


260  THE  CHRISTIAN  YWM  OF 

tragedies  of  Elijah  and  Isaiah  have  an  undying 
charm.  And  the  exaniples  are  varied  as  they  are 
interesting.  It  offers  examples  of  almost  every 
stage  of  moral  development.  Whatever  the  pupil's 
moral  attitude,  there  is  some  Jewish  hero  that 
appeals  to  him.  That  hero's  actions  can  be 
traced  to  their  motives  and  followed  to  their 
consequences.  He  can  be  treated  with  sympathy 
m  so  far  as  he  attains  the  standard  of  his  times, 
and  yet  criticized  in  so  far  as  his  motives  are 
not  those  which  we  recognize  as  absolute.  So 
the  pupil  may  learn  at  once  to  appropriate  those 
Tuedia  aximnata  which  fit  him,  and  yet  realize 
that    there    is    something    beyond    and    above 

them."C') 

The  Old  Testament  is  of  permanent  significance 
because  of  its  insistence  on  pure  and  spiritual 
religion,  and  its  condemnation  of  all  cold  and 
external  formalism.  These  words  of  the  prophet 
Isaiah  imply  a  lofty  conception  of  true  religion: 
"Wliat  unto  me  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacri- 
fices? saith  Jehovah:  I  have  had  enough  of  the 
burnt-offerings  of  rams,  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts; 
and  I  delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of 
Iambs,  or  of  he-goats.  Wlien  ye  come  to  appear 
before  me,  who  hath  required  this  at  your  hand, 
to  trample  my  courts?  Bring  no  more  vain 
oblations;  incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me; 
new  moon  and  sabbath,  the  calling  of  assemblies 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  261 

— I  cannot  away  with  iniquity  and  the  solemn 
meeting.  Your  new  moons  and  your  appointed 
feasts  my  soul  hateth;  they  are  a  trouble  unto 
me;  I  am  weary  of  bearing  them.  And  when  ye 
spread  forth  your  hands,  I  will  hide  mine  eyes 
from  you;  yea,  when  ye  make  many  prayers,  I 
will  not  hear:  your  hands  are  full  of  blood.  Wash 
you,  make  you  clean;  put  away  the  evil  of  your 
doings  from  before  mine  eyes;  cease  to  do  evil; 
learn  to  do  well;  seek  justice,  relieve  the  oppressed, 
judge  the  fatherless,  plead  for  the  widow. "(^^) 
And  the  prophetic  definition  of  religion,  "He  hath 
showed  thee,  0  man,  what  is  good;  and  what 
doth  Jehovah  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly, 
and  to  love  kindness,  and  to  walk  humbly  with 
thy  God?"(^^)  is  in  no  wise  inferior  to  that  given 
in  the  New  Testament:  "Pure  religion  and  unde- 
filed  before  our  God  and  Father  is  this,  to  visit 
the  fatherless  and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and 
to  keep  oneself  mispotted  from  the  world.  "(^^) 

Finally,  how  can  we  estimate  highly  enough 
the  devotional  value  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
illustrated,  for  example,  in  the  book  of  Psalms? 
Here  we  have  the  outpourings  of  human  souls  in 
the  closest  fellowship  with  their  God,  giving 
without  restraint  expression  to  the  most  various 
emotions,  hopes,  desires,  and  aspirations.  What 
other  literary  compositions  lift  us  into  such 
atmosphere   of   religious   thought   and   emotion? 


262  THE  CHEISTIAN  VIEW  OF 

Surely,   the  sweet   singers  enjoy   a   preeminence 
from  which  they  can  never  be  dethroned. 

It  is  quite  safe,  therefore,  to  assert,  that  as 
long  as  human  nature  is  what  it  is  now  the  Old 
Testament  must  remain  an  ever-flowing  fountain 
of  living  truth,  able  to  invigorate  and  to  restore, 
to  purify  and  to  refine,  to  ennoble  and  to  enrich 
the  moral  and  spiritual  being  of  man.  "No 
man,"  says  A.  W.  Vernon,(='®)  "save  Jesus,  ever 
had  the  right  to  lay  the  Book  .  .  .  aside,  and  he 
made  it  immortal." 


NOTES  ON  CHAPTER  VI 

(')  J.  C.  Todd,  Politics  and  Religion  in  'Ancient  Israel, 
p.  vii. 

C)  The  Origin  and  Permanent  Value  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, p.  7. 

(^)  Contemporary  Review,  August,  1889,  p.232. 

(*)  C.  F.  Kent,  The  Origin  and  Permanent  Value  of  the 
Old  Testament,  pp.  5ff. 

C)  Biblical  Criticism  and  Modem  Thought,  p.  6. 

(')  See  above,  p.  79. 

(')  Biblical  Criticism  and  Modern  Thought,  p.  230. 

(")  S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  xlii. 

C)  A.  Westphal,  The  Law  and  the  Prophets,  p.  43. 

(*")  S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  Ixx. 

(")  W.  W.  White,  Studies  in  Old  Testament  Characters, 
p.  14. 

(")  S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  Ixviii. 

(")  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church, 
p.  335. 

('*)  Matt.  5.  17. 

(")  These  words  of  Johannes   Arnd  are  used  by  Franz 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  263 

Delitzsch  aa  the  motto  for  his  Commentary  on  the 
Psalms. 

(")  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Book  V,  Chapter  XXXVII,  2. 

(")  The  Book  of  Psalms,  Vol.  I,  p.  18. 

('*)  J.  T.  Marshall,  Job  and  His  Comforters,  p.  4. 

n  For  example,  3.  5-7;  16.  3,  6,  9;  23.  17. 

(20)  ^  -p.  Davison,  The  Wisdom  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testament,  pp.  134,  135. 

O  G.  A.  Barton,  The  Book  of  Job,  p.  12. 

C^)  W.  G.  Jordan,  Biblical  Criticism  and  Modern  Thought, 
pp.  284,  285. 

{^)  Richard  G.  Moulton,  The  Modern  Reader's  Bible, 
One  Vol.  ed.,  p.  x. 

('^)  A.  W.  Vernon,  The  Religious  Value  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, p.  80. 

(^)  Expository  Times,  November,  1908,  pp.  54,  55. 

n  Isa.  1.  11-17. 

(")  Mic.  6.  8. 

n  James  1.  27. 

('')  The  Religious  Value  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  81 


INDEX 


Abraham,  238. 

Adad-nirari  IV,  134. 

Ahab,  ISlff. 

Angels,  lS2f. 

Animism,  165f.,  169f. 

Appeal  to  the  soul,  30ff. 

Archaeological  material,  123f. 

ArchiPology,  llOff. 

Ashurbanipal,  140. 

Assumption  versus  knowl- 
edge, 217ff. 

Authorship,  of  Pentateuch, 
88f.;  other  books,  89f. 


Conflict  between  science  and 
Genesis,  41flf. 

Contrasts,  221f. 

Cosmology  of  appearances, 
59f. 

Creation,  41ff.;  story  of, 
201fl.;  permanent  value, 
235f. 

Criticism,  66ff . ;  benefits, 
lOSff.;  definition,  67f.; 
Jesus  and  c,  92ff.;  in- 
spiration and  c,  98ff.,  105. 

CjTUS,  141. 


Babylon,  faU  of,  141. 
Benefits  of  criticism,  105ff. 
Bible  and  Reason,  33f. 
Bible  lands.  111. 
Black  Obelisk,  133f. 

Canon,  86f. 

Ceremonial  system,  178flF. 

Character  study,  238,  258f. 

Christian  consciousness,  36. 

Comparative  religion,  IGOfT. 

Comparative  study,  IGOff.; 
aim,  IGO;  attitude  toward, 
161f.;  importance,  1G4 

Compilation,  87f. 

Composition,  21-23. 

Confirmations,  156. 


David,  104. 

Day  of  Creation,  45f. 

Decalogue,  199,  214ff. 

Deity,  conception  of,  165ff., 
206f.,  212;  Babylonian, 
165-169,  Egyptian,  169, 
Hebrew,  169-172;  Charac- 
ter of  D.,  173ff. 

Demons,  183f. 

Devotional  literature,  17f., 
242f. 

Divine  element,  26ff. 

Doctrinal  value,  257f. 

Ecclesiastes,  250f. 
Elephantine,  141. 
Eponym  lists,  153. 


264 


INDEX 


265 


Esarhaddon,  140. 
Excavations,  112ff.;  ABsyrio- 

Babylonia,   112-  116; 

Egypt,  116-118;  Palestine, 

118-121;    Phoenicia,     121; 

Moab,    121;    Syria,    121; 

Asia  Minor,  121f. 
Exile,  141. 
Exodus,  128f. 

Facts  versus  inferences,  144f. 

Fall,  213. 

Festivals,  178. 

Flood,  207ff. 

Fulfillment  of  prophecy,  28f." 

Gains  from  excavations, 
ISlff.;  chronology,  152f., 
155;  geography,  151f.;  his- 
tory, lo2. 

Gilgamesh,  208. 

Hammurabi,  code  of,  188ff. 

Harmonizing  science  with 
scripture,  45ff. 

Harmony  between  science 
and  Genesis,  61f. 

Hezekiah,  13Sf. 

Higher  criticism,  73ff.;  defi- 
nition, 76;  extra-biblical, 
76f.;  tradition  and  h.  c, 
77;  importance,  7Sf.;  ori- 
gin, 79ff.;  reformers  and 
h.  c,  SOf.;  loyalty  to  Christ 
and  h.  c,  82f.;  traditional, 


83;  non-traditional,  83fT.; 
conclusions,  85ff . ;  illegiti- 
mate, lOlf.;  Jesus  and 
h.  c,  92ff.;  inspiration  and 
h.  c,  98ff.;  Mo.ses  and 
h.  c,  102f.;  Isaiah  and 
h.  c,  103f.;  David  and 
h.  c,  104. 

Historical  criticism,  72f. 

Historical  hteraturc,  19f., 
240ff.,  256f. 

Human  element,  20fT. 

Ideal  harmony,  52. 
Illegitimate  criticism,  lOlf. 
Imperfections,  24f. 
Inaccuracies,  23f.,  55fT. 
Infallibility,  38f. 
Inferences  versus  facts,  144f. 
Inspiration      and      criticism 

98ff.,  105. 
Interpretation,  39f.,  45ff. 
Isaiah,  103f. 

Jehu,  134. 

Jesus,  the  supreme  revealer, 
35fT.;  limitation  of  knowl- 
edge, 97f.;  criticism  and  J., 
92ff.;  the  Old  Testament 
and  Jesus,  9f .,  26,  36f.,  234. 

Job,  247-250. 

Knowledge  versus  assump- 
tion, 217ff. 

Legal  literature,  18f. 


266 


INDEX 


Legal  syatoni,  Babylonian, 
187ff.;  Hebrew,  195f.;  re- 
lation between  the  two, 
199f. 

Linguistic  criticism,  70f. 

Literary  criticism,  71f. 

Literature,  kinds  of,  15fT.,  90. 

Merneptah,  128f. 
Miracles,  27f. 
Mission  of  Israel,  60f. 
Misuse,  23 If. 
Moabite  Stone,  ISOff. 
Monotheism,  167f.,  218f. 
Monotheistic  tendencies,  167- 

169. 
Moral  teaching,  259. 
Moses,  102f. 

Nature   of    Old    Testament, 

12f. 
Nebuchadrezzar,  140f. 
Neglect,  227f.;  causes  of,  229- 

233. 
New  Testament,  superiority, 

229f.,    254f.;    estimate    of 

O.  T.,  lOf. 

Old  Testament,  nature,  12f.; 
reliability,  150f.;  as  litera- 
ture, 255f.;  in  Christian 
church,  9;  New  Testament 
estimate  of,  lOf.;  Old  Tes- 
tament and  interpretation 
of   New   Testament,   257; 


Jesus  and  Old  Testament, 

9f.,  26,  36f.,  234. 
Omri,  130f. 
Opposition  to  criticism,  74f., 

82,  101. 
Order  of  creation,  47ff. 

Patriarchal  age,  154;  narra- 
tives, 238f. 

Pekah,  135. 

Penitential  Psalms,  168. 

Pentateuch,  authorship  of, 
88f. 

Permanent  value,  59fif.,  227ff. 

Polydemonism,  171. 

Polytheism,  166ff. 

Priesthood,  179f. 

Prophecy,  fulfillment  of,  28f. 

Prophetic  literature,  15f., 
253f. 

Proverbs,  245-247. 

Psahns,  242-244,  261. 

Purpose  of  Old  Testament, 
llf.,  53ff.,  148. 

Reliabihty,  of  O.  T.  history, 

150f. 
Religion,  development  of,  87. 
Religious  imperfections,  24f.; 

r.  institutions,  175ff. 
Restitution  theory,  48f. 
Revelation,  53ff.;  methods  of, 

13f.;  progressive,  85f. 

Sabbath,  175ff. 


INDEX 


267 


Sacrifice,  ISOf. 
Samaria,  capture  of,  136f. 
Sargon  II,  136. 
Science,  38fT. 
Sennacherib,  137ff. 
Shalmaneser  III,  132f. 
Shalmancser  V,  136. 
Sheol,  184ff. 
Shishak,  129f. 
Similarities,  220. 
Song  of  Songs,  251-253. 
Spiritual  appeal,  29ff.;  judg- 
ment, 35f.;  unity,  29f. 
Style,  21. 


Tiglath-pilcHcr  IV,  134ff. 

Tirhaka,  139f. 

Tithe,  180. 

True  religion,  260f. 

Uniqueness,  32f. 
Unity,  29f. 
Unrest,  42fT.,  232. 
Use  of  archaeological  material, 
143ff. 

Veracity  of  inscriptions,  14of . 
View  point,  149f. 
Vision  theory,  50f. 


Taylor  Cylinder,  138f. 
Tel-cl-Amarna  tablets,  125ff. 
Temple,  179. 
Textual  criticism,  68ff.,  74. 


Wisdom  literature,  16f.,  244ff. 

Yahweh,  171ff.,  217. 
Yaudi,  135. 


UCSOllTHfP.NRfOlOfjAL 


LIBRARY  fACILITV 


AA    000  813  052    8 


